User talk:Patrick0Moran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

User:Patrick0Moran/Archive1


Contents

[edit] Assertions

For what they are worth, hereinunder begins a collection of assertions:

[edit] re: concerns about anon editor

Any specific reason you brought your concerns to me? I'm glad to keep an eye out, but is there any reason that I am particularly apt for the job? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brainwashing and Mind Control

Please take part at the merge vote under Talk:Mind control#Merge vote --Irmgard 16:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Measurement problem problem

You asked on my talk page: Hi, Phil,

I saw the change you made to the references section to the Measurement Problem article. I'm glad you're doing this, but I wonder whether there may not be some way of fixing things so that the links do not appear as a jumbled set of incomprehensible abbreviations (?).

I'm assuming that you refer to the DOI ("DOI:10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1267") and arXiv ("arXiv:quant-ph/0312059") links. Unfortunately the abbreviations used are the standard nomenclature: those are the actual labels used in the relevant conventions. We provide the links to the DOI and arXiv article to explain what is going on, but it would be pointless simply duplicating the title of the paper in each link.
My current role is converting as many "references" as possible to use the standard templates: this allows more consistent formatting and makes it possible to catch inconsistencies between entries that should be identical.

Are you a physicist? There are a few articles that could really use help from someone who (1) is well grounded in physics, and (2) is willing to try to make the articles accessible to other than physics majors. There are several articles that might attract the attention of bright high school students trying to get information that goes beyond pap being fed to them, but they come nowhere near the standard of Greene's writings on deep issues for the non-expert, and I see no reason why they have to be written only for people who would be better advised to pick up one of their fourth year physics texts for a refresher anyway. P0M 19:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my physics is a good few years out of date. I might be able to get back into the stride of things with a good run-up, but I suspect you'll find a good many people much better qualified than me :-) —Phil | Talk 09:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 203.109.157.88

Hi. Sorry for not replying quicker, but I don't have much to say: I don't have the anon's pages on my watchlist, and came across his vandalism on patrol. I don't know about his deal beyond what's clearly visible. --Kizor 01:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] wu shu

Please join the Wikipedia:WikiProject martial arts. Uncle Ed 02:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Any interest

In weighing in on [[1]] or even re-editing the article. I don't mean the polemics, but the matter at hand. You seem to know what you're talking about and I am out of steam. SY, Ockham 22:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts

Greetings. Is the project you are working on intended to be different from the apparently older Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts? I agree that things are very fractured at present. The trouble is that there are so many different traditions, as you can see from the translations; we have wushu, kung fu, guoshu, kuo shu, gongfu, quanfa, ch'üan fa, etc. all used by different organisations. Add Cantonese, Shanghainese, Mandarin, Korean, Japanese and Okinawan dialect differences to the romanisation stew and its a wonder there are any coherent articles at all. What a mess. But I'm willing to pitch in to help, and I'll be having some extra free time coming up soon. Regards, --Fire Star 18:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Current revision...

I'm honored by your request, Patrick, and would be delighted to contribute whatever I can. Thanks. Michael. Mjformica 12:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What Martial Art Style Do You Study/Practice?

Just wondering? My guess is Wing Chun! Maybe I haven't looked at your entire profile or missed something. With respect, Joe

POM, You are like I am in that regard. Started out in Tae Kwon Do when I was kid then moved. Tried another Tae Kwon Do school which game out rank like candy even with no improvement, so I when to another school of Shorin-ryu Karate and liked it, but moved again and tried Shotokan for a while. The style was good but the teacher was bad, so off to another school. I took Isshin Ryu for many years, then my Isshin Ryu instructor got arrested, so off to another school. I tried Wing Chun Do, an offshoot of traditional Wing Chun. Good instructor, but I wanted a traditional Kung Fu which this style of Wing Chun was not, so I saw an add on boxing and started that. From there I was introduced into kick boxing and then Savate, which I really liked. Then I moved to the East Coast after many years of Savate training under Julian Loredo in West Bloomfield Michigan. He was a great instructor and fighter. I learned a lot from him and became desensitized to getting hit and kick hard from him. I learned that my problems with martial arts training in the based were because I could not deal with the stress of getting hit. Savate and Julian Loredo took care of that problem for me in a step-by-step building process. Now I am on the East Coast where you can choose whatever martial art you are interested in. I had always wanted to learn a traditional Kung Fu style, so I found a traditional Northern Chinese Long Fist instructor who has good knowledge of the Long Fist forms.

I see you have studied Praying Mantis Kung Fu. I was thinking of taking it but the nearest school is closer to New York City and a long drive, so when I found the Long Fist school I was really happy. I noticed that the Praying Mantis Kung Fu seems contain the highest number of forms as compared to other styles of Kung Fu. I think Praying Mantis even contains a Long Fist form?

With respect, Joe

[edit] Epigenetics

Epigenetics, Epigenetic inheritance --Rikurzhen 19:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anon, anon!

Do you make a habit of removing every edit that any anon. user who has plaugurized, or to use your beautiful language "trashed" a single, or no more than five articles?

Some of those edits are legitimate.

That's all. :) I'm not angry or something -- just protesting. → Chèvredan∫ante talk · contrib @ 23:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Horse parts.jpg

Hi, just in case you are not watching the PUI page I figured I'd just let you know I reverted the image to your PD version and deleted the copyrighted revision of the image that was uploaded on top of it. I think that solves that problem. Just so you know. --Sherool (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum Mechanics - Simplified

Thanks for the note. I actually thought no one was monitoring that particular article because of the spelling errors and grammar errors. I'm glad you are watching it.

The Heisenberg microscope is often taught to beginners as a way of kind of explaining the Uncertainty Principle, but actually it is fundamentally wrong. The website that you can use to explain it is at http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08b.htm. I think there should be an article on it since it is still widely used, but as the page above will show, collisions between a photon and a particle do not really come into play. In fact, it says Heisenberg himself said there was no "real" microscopic collision that moved the particle. Therefore among physicists this illustration is no longer used. The real idea behind the Uncertainty principle is if you imagine a wave with its undulations, its crests and troughs, moving along. Well, a wave is also a particle, so you have to superimpose a particle moving in a straight line along the middle of the wave. If the particle and the wave are the same thing though, then the particle is really somewhere in the width of the wave, its position could be anywhere from the crest to the trough. The math for the uncertainty principle says that the measurement of uncertainty is 1/2 the width of the wave or one-half of a cycle. Also, the reason the Heisenberg microscope illustration doesn't work is because of the concept of entanglement. I don't know how much you remember about that, but it means that when there is a change in one particle at a distance from another particle the other particle automatically changes to counter-balance the system. That is the easiest way I can explain it. In other words, you can look at one particle and know the state of another particle in the system. Because of this, you can examine other particles in the system without looking directly at them under a microscope, so the problem of the collision of a photon of light doesn't arise. Therefore, the Heisenberg microscope illustration is a fundamentally flawed argument. But it needs its own article and own explanation as it is almost universally still known. I will try to continue to work on this article on simplified QM when I get the chance. In fact, I will use some of this explanation in the article. Thanks for writing. It's such a good idea to have a plain English version of the article!--Voyajer 03:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Fortunately, I'm too new at this to know what a "Wolf Ticket" is and still don't see what you mean (and don't really care because it was ridiculous to leave it that way). Also, I know that Heisenberg's microscope was used by Heisenberg so of course it is useful to explain the history of the development of QM. It's just some people here come down really hard on anyone who makes a mistake, (like I've done a couple of times), so I didn't want anyone to belittle you for a description of Heisenberg's microscope. They won't if you show its importance in the development of the theory and show that it doesn't really represent the current understanding of QM. Just trying to be helpful. Merry Christmas back at you!--Voyajer 20:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

I've seen the original argument several places about the "reality" of QM. I understand the original Messiah content, but it will take a large amount of typing and explaining to get it all out. It is good material and I will include it. There are other websites that explain it that I've come across. The second re-work is old hat. It has nothing original in it and misses the point altogether. But at least it has some nice Heisenberg quotes. I hope the new article will be comprehensive. I expect it will be very long though. Probably much longer than our article on Basics of QM. Thanks for pointing out this older version. I'll get to it soon.--Voyajer 23:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I missed something in the first reading of the article you mentioned. In the original, it says QM is "reality". This is because Kant, the philosopher spoke of two kinds of reality. One which is in truth the reality of the universe and one which is the way we humans imagine it through our theories. The reason this article was reworked is because it is too dogmatic about QM being the actually reality of the atom. And it is saying that general relativity is pretty much meaningless and that all truth lies in QM. This is rather too narrow an interpretation and does not reflect mainstream QM theory. In fact, Bohr, the founder of QM as you know, said the opposite. He viewed QM as Kant's second kind of reality, as only what we can say in theory about the atom, probably not what the reality of the atom actually is. The article was very opinionated in its original form and contradicted Bohr. However, the rewrite is weak and pointless since there is no need for the article in the first place as it was just a forum for one person's (Messiah's) opinion that QM was the last word on the atom.--Voyajer 03:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears as though the original writer of the article didn't know "thing one" of what he was talking about. He obviously misread Messiah as you implied. There are obvious misconceptions in people's perception of quantum mechanics. I've read places on the internet where people say that Schroedinger's wave equation gives an exact location of the electron and doesn't need the uncertainty principle. In fact, this idea permeates the web and is a fallacy. It is probably this wrong impression that led to the thinking that reality is only on the quantum level and measurement becomes inexact at the macro level. --Voyajer 18:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spider edit

You reverted my edit of Spider. It is not blanking; it is simply putting a section into its own article. The Types of spiders article I put the info into was a large enough section that it makes sense to me for it to have an article of its own, and the Spider article is pretty big with the Types of spiders info put into the article. Georgia guy 22:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Chinese Reader Volume 2

I found the book. Go to http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchEntry and search for the title Modern Chinese Reader Part 2 min published date 1958 max published date 1958 and you will get what I found. I sent an email but you must not have gotten it. Fred Bauder 19:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Race and Intelligence

I'm not sure what to do. It was always obvious to me that there could be articles, nutrition and intelligence and education and intelligence, but somehow they never get created. Fred Bauder 19:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The most fundamental problem is the presumption inducing dichotomy and suggestive word choices in race and intelligence. A close second and related problem is the fact that nutrition and other causes have been excluded or significantly downplayed by mislabeling them mere "factors". A close third problem is the fact that it is fundamentally disputed whether IQ tests measure anything especially an abstract conceptualization of "intelligence" (if even possible to measure). Rather than perpetuating the X and intelligence dichotomies I think this abstract subject should be reorganized and rewritten around where the fundamentally disputed points begin (IQ testing disputed, "intelligence" insufficiently scientific defined, the X and intelligence dichotomy method of presentation confuses description of an abstract issue with possible cause for that issue, and the funding sources of "race and intelligence" research have a history of scientific racism and eugenics which critics charge taints the research and categorize it as political advocacy not science). I think IQ test results controversy, Intelligence research and Intelligence research controversy (as long as we sufficiently caveat "intelligence") may be able to cover this subject (I am open to suggestions for other and better titles or presentation methods, especially surrounding the potentially suggestive word "intelligence"). zen master T 22:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hutong

Well, I pronounce as hu2tong0 (or hu2tongr0), and I'm not aware of any other modern pronunciation for this term. -- ran (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spider Ids

Hi, Wonder if you can help me with the spiders here

Peucetia viridana
Peucetia viridana

thanks Shyamal 11:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. More will come ! I have added them to the gallery on commons. Shyamal 03:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Abba.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Abba.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

– Quadell (talk) (bounties) 15:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Revert

Pray tell, why did you revert my talk page like that? SWD316 talk to me 04:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I remember that vandal who made the title "loser ;-)" That was from a while back. Anyways, thanks for telling me, I was getting worried about a possible good user going corrupt. ;-) SWD316 talk to me 04:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David_R._Ingharn

Thank you for bringing this user to my attention, he has created a number of vandalism accounts. Tempted to block the whole country. Fred Bauder 04:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] SmartBee

SmartBee is gone. SmartBee's name will no longer be on wikipedia. SmartBee is annoyed at having to continually make himself disappear. SmartBee does not exist

[edit] Re: Location of Chibi

Hi Patrick, my text for the photo is actually wrong. It should say, "south of Wulin". The Sanguo zhi mentions on a few occasions that Cao Cao made camp at Wulin, on the northwest bank of the Yangzi River whilst Sun Quan and his allies made camp opposite Wulin (which would have to be on the southeast bank). There's a modern town of Wulin in Hubei, probably not too far from the historic Wulin. I think Chibi was not far from there, possibly at 29°52'11.36"N 113°38'14.19"E.
Bowang was a county, near 33°13'56.83"N 112°43'15.38"E. It's quite a logical place for a battle to occur. It's very close to the major city of Nanyang, which was Liu Biao's northern outpost. It's also close to two transport routes, the southern road from Luoyang and a southwestern route from Xuchang. Yeu Ninje 05:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the spot I gave you is very close to the Lu River. The spot where it meets the Yangzi is called Lukou (陆口). That place was probably no bigger than a trading post, but became strategically important in the conflict between Liu Bei and Sun Quan in the 210s. I recall that the Wu general Lu Xun established a naval base there. You are right, the city of Puqi is on the Lu River, but it's been renamed Chibi (probably for tourism reasons) and the river has been dammed so it no longer flows to the Yangzi. The cliff face in the photos is a few kilometres southwest of the former mouth of the Lu River.
There are only one reference to a battle at Bowang in the main text of Sanguo zhi - in the biography of Liu Bei. I'll translate, "Liu Bei was sent to oppose Xiahou Dun, Yu Jin and others at Bowang. After a long wait, Liu Bei prepared an ambush. One morning he razed his own camp and pretended to flee. Xiahou Dun and the others pursued, and were defeated by the ambush." Beyond that there are no more details. I know that Xiahou Dun was garrisoned at Luoyang before 208, so he would have marched directly south along the route of the modern railway until he encountered Liu Bei's defences around Bowang. Liu perhaps used the cover of a nearby wood or dike to ambush Xiahou's men. Yeu Ninje 09:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


I find the geographical names in Sanguo yanyi are usually pretty accurate (even if the events it purports to recount are not) so I wouldn't be surprised to find that there is actually a Luo River near Bowang. On Chibi, the cliffs you see in the photo are actually very low-lying, probably with an elevation of no more than 15 metres. They probably wouldn't show on Google Earth. Out of interest, what class do you teach? Yeu Ninje 10:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Spider_chelicerae.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Spider_chelicerae.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dangerous spiders page

Patrick,

The dangerous spiders page (perhaps with a better title emphasizing danger to humans; medically significant spiders might be a good choice) is a good idea; a couple of suggestions:

  • The spider article already has a list of spiders with medical significance. Perhaps that info can be merged/moved, with a main article relationship.
  • Likewise, make sure that the information is consistent across other Wikipedia articles, including articles on specific spiders.
  • Besides A. robustus and it's cousins; there are other old-world tarantulas (such as the Chinese bird spider) of medical significance. Unfortunately, many of the nasty spiders of eastern Asia are not as well documented as the medically significant spiders of Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand. For instance, there are lots of studies on the components of the venom of the Chinese bird spider; it's a rather interesting chemical stew. Plus, this spider (like many tarantulas, popular among collectors) is well-known to have a "bad attitude". What isn't well-documented are the effects of bites on humans--there have been reported fatalities, but few confirmed case studies of human envenomations in the medical literature.

Sorry it took a while to reply; just returned from vacation and an unwinding. :)

--EngineerScotty 05:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nasty Taiwanese spider

You're probably thinking of the various spiders of the genus Macrothele, which are in the same family as Atrax robustus. I've added a comment to the Talk:Australasian funnel-web spider talk page, regarding these critters. --EngineerScotty 19:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mygalomorph

Hi ! Thanks for your comments, I sent out a request for id on SpiderIndia on yahoo groups. Regarding categorization on commons, i really find it very hard to put new images on galleries. I do when i find the right one but I tend to work using the keywords in the description and somehow find it hard to follow the other categorization approaches suggested on the commons.

This spider stayed still all the time and let me get really close for pictures. Will add the identity once someone helps me on this. Shyamal 04:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On "de"

Hi Patrick, I just want to point out that the article has been badly vandalized. The quotes you pointed out have nothing to do with what Falun Dafa teaches. All the teachings of Falun Gong are available for free download on www.falundafa.org. I dont speak Chinese but as for karma and virtue ( which are just words used to represent what Buddism calls Bad Karma and Good Karma. The Lectures make it very clear that the term "de" is being used to represent what Buddhism calls Good Karma.)

For Instance the word "karma" in Hindi, Sanskrit or Malayalam only means "action" .. but schools of cultivation be it Buddhism, Gnosticism or the Hindu Scriptures all say Karma is a form of matter, with physical higher dimensional existance, created through action... just my understanding... I think it would be better to understand Falun Dafa by going through the teachings of Falun Dafa first hand.. If I remember right, lecture 1 on this page (http://www.falundafa.org/eng/media.htm#GUANGZHOU )talks about the usage of the word "de".


In my understanding many internal martial arts are deeply rooted in the traditional chinese concept of Xiu Lian. Falun XiuLian Dafa is a cultivation way of the Buddha school. Kindly go through the teachings of Falun Dafa... Many things on the wikipedia page arent even remotely factual... I request your help in editing the Falun Gong page and making sure the content is factual. Thankyou. :) Dilip rajeev 08:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please dont look at the block quotes on the page which were made by some political science professor to understand Falun Gong.

Master Da Liu, the Master who introduced Tai Chi to America and the author of several books on Tai Chi, Qi Gong and the author of several books on Tai Chi made the following statement at the age of 95:

"I had been teaching Taichi and studying various Qigong practices for more than 40 years when I started looking into Falun Dafa. I now tell all my students to practice Falun Dafa."

KIndly go through the teachings of Falun Dafa..Falun Buddha Fa Lectures in United States says:

"The first issue concerns why our Dafa doesn’t follow the conventions of grammar. This has become a strong obstacle for intellectuals and those with advanced schooling, especially those who work with writing or literature, or do Chinese language studies, etc., that is, people in those disciplines. Why can’t we follow the conventions of ordinary human language when we teach the Fa? As you know, the meaning of a standardized term has been predefined: “This word means precisely XYZ.” Moreover, standardized language is limited and unable to describe the immense Fa. In this enormous cosmos, humankind’s Earth isn’t even a speck of dust in a speck of dust inside yet another speck of dust. That’s how puny it is. How could it possibly hold such an immense Fa? How could the Fa of the cosmos possibly be confined by the conventions of human languages? How could It conform to the conventions of human languages? There’s absolutely no way.

Our Fa merely employs human language. As to how this language is used to teach Dafa, it’s good enough as long as it allows you to understand—that’s the purpose. That’s why the language we use doesn’t conform to conventions of grammar."

"Since I’m teaching the Fa to modern people, of course I have to incorporate modern people’s concepts in my teachings. You wouldn’t be able to understand it if I were to use the language and terms of the heavens, or if we were to invent a lot of new terms. So this is how I have to teach the Fa."

Essentials for Further Advancement says:

"Some students were once lay Buddhists and have a very deep impression of the terms in Buddhist scriptures. When they find that I use words identical to those in Buddhism, they think that their meanings are the same as in Buddhism. In fact, they do not denote exactly the same meanings. Some terms in the Buddhism of the Han region are Chinese vocabulary, and they are not exclusively terms from Buddhism."


Dilip rajeev 13:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)\

[edit] Hi Patrick,

Hi Patrick, :) I just read your post on the criticism page. I wanted to share my thoughts with you. I thought I'll do so on the your page as this is not realted directly to the discussion there.

Our materialistic education tells us that Buddhist scriptures, the Daoist teachings etc are all some kind of speculative philosophy. I really dont know how to put my understanding, but I'll try.

The intellect is only one of tiniest and most puny faculties in the levels of the being, inherently incapable of "knowing" or creating. The intellect can hold a million FACTS about a rose but its a higher faculty that lets you know what a rose is. The intellect is not to be confused with "intelligence" wich is a higher faculty.

All schools of cultivation hold that the WILL, the true self, is bottled up or chained in the attachments, the karmic aggregates ( which are material existance in higher dimensions). As you cultivate yourself and eliminate the "attachments" and notions, your WILL is freed to a greater extent and you percieve the truth directly and higher faculties emerge.

That is Gnosis, or knowledge -like knowing a rose by seeing it ( thats different from studying a hundered books on a rose and not having the faculties to see or percieve it ).

There is absolutely no need to believe or doubt - to accept or reject- when you understand. The path of wisdom doesnt lie in subjective comparisons of the mammal intellect. The path of wisdom constitutes in inquiry, analysis, meditation and experimentation.

I'll talk about my experience with Falun Dafa. When I came across it I thought it was some kind of "qi gong" and I learned the exercises. I started practicing it because it felt great. At that time i didnt even know what a "falun" is. But after a few days of practice I could objectively feel the rotations of the Falun and it comes quite powerfully( and there is no imagination or any mind-activity in Falun Gong practice).. I really couldnt explain it all and thats how I started studying the books... As a person who has had a keen interest in physics from a very young age, some of the teachings really suprised me.. to cite just once instance..

“If there were such an instrument through which we could expand and see the level at which all atomic elements or molecular elements could manifest in their entirety, or if this scene were observed, you would reach beyond this dimension and see the real scenes existing in other dimensions” –Zhuan Falun

“…Thus (as is indeed shown by a more careful consideration of the Mathematical form of the quantum Laws involved here) each elementary particle acts as if it were a projection of a higher dimensional reality” – David Bohm in “Wholeness and Implicate Order”

..just like we would refuse to blindly believe another man's words we must refuse to blindly believe our own notions... just read through Zhuan Falun -once cover to cover .. or listen to the nine lectures here [2]...you will know what I am trying to tell you.... And try the exercises too.. you'll find the instructions here on Falun Dafa Exercises... and the book Falun Gong

Dilip rajeev 11:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese bird spider

Thanks for the edits on Chinese bird spider. I'm curious--do you ever edit the Chinese Wikipedia? You might translate the article into Chinese if you feel up to it; there doesn't appear to be an article over there.

(I know some spoken Cantonese, mainly because my wife is from Guangdong; but I'm illiterate in all Chinese dialects. Otherwise I might try it myself.) --EngineerScotty 00:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speaking of this sort of tarantula; I've created two more relevant articles: Haplopelma I wrote myself, and Ornithoctoninae is a translation from the article on the German Wikipedia. If you've time, check them out. --EngineerScotty 22:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hope you did well on your finals. At any rate, I'm in Beaverton, which is about 180 miles away from Bend. Bend is a pretty place, and growing like leaps and bounds; though I don't know how much of its old "hacker" community is left (it used to have quite a bit of hackers, especially for a town that size). Anyway, let me know what you think.

One other thought: Given the dodgy nature of tarantula taxonomy; especially with the Asian species--I thought it might be useful to merge Chinese bird spider, Haplopelma, Ornithoctoninae, and perhaps Cobalt blue tarantula (all articles referring to spiders in Ornithoctoinae) into one article. What do you think? --EngineerScotty 03:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for Reverting Vandalism

Thank you for reverting Vandalism by 71.112.200.39. When you revert vandalism by a users you may want to check their Contributions and revert the rest of their vandalism. If they vandalize one page they probably vandalized other pages too.--E-Bod 18:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I also noticed you edit summary to the page (Vandalism repeated after previously being blocked. ADMIN attention please.). If you think a user is ready for a Block due to Vandalism you can report them at WP:AIV, However in reality Only bad Vandalism is Blocked.

Do not list here if

  1. The incident is not vandalism but a content dispute
  2. They have not vandalized very recently (past 2 hours), nor since the last warning ({{test3}} or {{test4}})
  3. The vandal has not received the full range of test warnings recently (i.e., not counting warnings from 2005).
  4. The recent vandalism from an IP began hours (or days) after the last warning — it could be a different person

The one time i saw a user with a final warning and i Reported on AIV the user was not blocked becose the vandlism was a few days old.

[edit] Definition of Physics

Hello and thank you for your criticisms (more are very much welcome). I've copied this response onto my own talk page for the benefit of anybody who also has similar objections to those that you had. Let me try to explain what I meant with that sentence; first, by explaining the meaning of the words I used, and then the meaning of the sentence as a whole.

Answering your first point, I tried to imply conscious beings when I said "entities that physically argue" (you got it when you said "people who argue about physics"): literally, somebody who is able to think and argue about physics. Now, why did I put it like that? Well, remember that I am trying to be general and do not want to make any assumptions that are not required. Therefore, I couldn't say "people", because that assumes people (as we know them) exist. Maybe angels do exist, or electrons can think: that doesn't matter to me - all that should concern us is that something is able to think about physics, i.e. "entities that physically argue". I also tried to sidestep the issues of consciousness. In particular, I never specified what these "entities" are: are they conscious? What does it mean to be conscious? And so forth...

In answering your first objection, I've answered your second: "physically argue" just means something that is able to argue about physics. Note that I always (in this definition at least) use the word "physically" as meaning "of physics" rather than meaning "something that is material", which is its everyday meaning.

From what you have written, it is clear that you understand the key principle of physics; but, I'm not sure you've quite understood the subtle point I was trying to make. So, let me re-state my argument in plainer English (and apologise in advance if I've insulted your intelligence):

When people argue about physics, and indeed anybody debates some topic of physics, we all understand that we are just guessing, basically. But, why are we guessing? Why don't we inherently know? Try to answer this question yourself. For example, you know there exists one type of electromagnetic charge (that has two opposite flavours, called positive and negative by convention); but, you know this because you have seen it (or, more likely, somebody else saw it and told you about it). Why didn't you inherently know this?

Most people's answer is that they just do not have this knowledge. Why don't we have this knowledge? Well, we don't know why. In fact, physics serves as the answer to any lack of true knowledge. Thus, we must assume that nobody has this knowledge in order for physics to exist (we "assume" because we don't actually know but believe it to be true).

Still don't get my point? Well, let's think about this hypothetical situation: suppose everybody is born with an innate knowledge of how nature actually behaves. That, somehow, you, me, every one of us knows with absolute certainty what nature is actually doing. Therefore, there is no need for physics - no need to do experiments, no need for us to think about how nature behaves: we already know. Let us now ask this question: is this situation possible? Obviously, we don't know of any (sane) person who makes such an extraordinary claim; but, it could be possible. Therefore, we must ASSUME THAT THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE in order for physics to be applicable. In other words, this is my axiom: "No person shall ever be born who inherently knows what nature is actually doing: everybody who lives, who has lived, and who will ever live, will only be able to guess." Thus, I said:

"...entities that physically argue are assumed not to have knowledge of how nature actually behaves for what is being considered."

The direct translation being:

"...we assume that people who think about physics have no inherent knowledge of how nature actually behaves for whatever it is that they are thinking about, otherwise, physics itself would be pointless."

I exert that this is an axiom because there is no reason (as far as anybody currently knows) why we should not be born with this fantastic knowledge.

Considering your opinions, I accept that it would be sensible to elaborate this issue rather than just leaving it as two esoteric sentences.

Now that you have brought the issue up though, maybe I should also include the axiom that conscious "entities" are assumed to exist; although, would this be considered to be a trivial axiom?

Anyway, if you have any more, or still have any, objections, I would be happy to address them. Krea 01:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


An axiom is "a statement whose truth cannot be deduced; but, is nevertheless universally accepted as being true". (Italicised bits are key to the meaning of "axiom").

I have already accepted that the sentence needed elaborating in order for its meaning to be made clear. But, I do in fact have two concerns: that of clarity, as you mentioned, and that of accuracy. As such, I tried to explain the meaning of that sentence in the hope that you could give me your opinion on its factual content. Concerning clarity, I will change the paragraph to:

Note that it is sometimes stated that physics is based solely on observations and has no axioms. This, however, is incorrect. Whilst physics is indeed based on observation, the existence of physics itself must be justified. Since there exists no way to deduce this, it must be exerted via an axiom. To explain, observe that the definition of physics, given above, essentially states that physics makes observations in order to deduce what laws exist. However, if it is already known what these laws are, the very existence of physics is invalidated. We therefore need to exert that we are not privy to this knowledge (in order for physics itself to exist). Since there does not currently exist a reason why we should not, in theory, possess this knowledge, and it is believed that we do not, the following statement is made:
It must be assumed that "entities" that argue about physics (we do not specify what these "entities" are) do not possess knowledge about how nature actually behaves for whatever it is that is under consideration.

Hopefully, this is much clearer than before; but, only you can tell me that. Krea 00:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


It is not clear to me that you understand what it is that I am trying to say at all. I agree that views on the meaning of knowledge, for example, would be inappropriate; but, I can assure you that the views expressed in the definition, from a physical point of view, are neither new nor personal.

You seem to think I am expressing views on philosophy: I am not. Everything that I have said is logical inference from one axiom: that nobody possess true knowledge of how nature behaves. (If the Platonist claims he/she has forgotten, then he/she doesn't know then, does he/she? Whether they did at one point know is of no consequence: the fact that they don't know now is enough to justify the existence of physics.)

I also do not think you know what an axiom is (I sincerely apologise if you do): an axiom is some fact that we assume to be true. Do you disagree with the axiom given? Do you think we possess knowledge of how nature behaves? This is not a philosophical question: it is merely a question of circumstance (although we could go into much more philosophical detail).

Before I go further, I think it would be prude if you made it clear what you think it is that I am trying to say; and to do that I hope that you read what I have written very carefully. Krea 11:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Ah, I think I see what your objections are. First, let me apologise for the manner in which I last replied: in honesty, I was a little annoyed because I jumped to the unfair conclusion that you did not read what I wrote carefully, whereas in truth you paid more attention than I might have hoped for. Now, I am fairly annoyed with myself for writing "An axiom is a fact that we assume to be true". Of course, you are right to protest at the contradiction implied. I should, indeed, have written that it is some proposition, just as you said.

I am glad that I am conversing with somebody at all about this topic, as nobody else seems bothered enough, and as such let me first make sure I understand what you are saying. If I understand correctly, you are saying that you do not agree to my exertion that the statement is an "axiom" because axioms are arbitrary (as long as they are logically consistent) and therefore, I need to justify the axiom because I, myself, claim it to be true.

Finally, I am not nearly as clever as my ego tells me I am, so if I have misunderstood, please correct me. Krea 02:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


I think that I now see what has been causing our dispute: because of what I wrote, I think that you thought I was saying, "physics is true, and this is an axiom of physics; therefore, the axiom is also true," and you want me to say, "Is this axiom true? Therefore, is physics applicable?". What I actually intended to say was this: "The axiom that I state is an axiom of physics because it is a trivial consequence of the definition of physics. Thus, if we believe physics is true, and therefore applicable to nature, we are implicitly expressing the belief that we believe that axiom to also be true." The problem was that of definition: you defined an axiom that makes a direct reference to nature, whereas I did not. I defined an axiom thus: a "physical axiom" is equivalent to the "mathematical axiom" but with one important difference: the physical axiom concerns "truth" because that is what physics concerns (likewise, the mathematical axiom does not concern "truth" because it is of no concern to pure mathematics). Therefore, an axiom of physics is a statement that we believe to be true but cannot justify if we believe physics to be true. It is this "if we believe physics to be true" that is the distinction between our two definitions. You put the responsibility of truth (with regard to applicability to nature) on the axiom, and I put it on the object to which the axiom refers to. In my definition both mathematical and physical axioms always apply to the object that they describe. They do not concern truth: they are merely rules that must be satisfied in order for the object that they describe to exist. Thus, if physics is about aquiring knowledge, then one of its axioms (which do not concern whether nature does this or not) is that we do not have this knowledge; otherwise, the very existence of physics would be invalidated.

If you keep in mind that that I do not state that physics is necessarily applicable to nature and that this exertion is merely belief, I never say that my axiom is true. All I say is that if physics is true, then so is that axiom. You implcitly thought that I exerted that physics was "true", and therefore that the axiom was also "true". Now, we both are trying to say the same thing, but in different ways. So let me re-state my argument in an absolutely clear way:

It is important to understand that there is no reason to believe that physics is applicable to nature. However, if we believe physics is indeed applicable, we are also implicitly expressing the belief that entities that physically argue (we do not specify what these "entities" are) do not possess a prior knowledge as to how nature actually behaves; otherwise, physics itself would be invalidated since we already know how nature works. This statement can be thought of as an "axiom" of physics in that it must be satisfied in order for physics to exist. However, the pivotal question that we can ask is to whether this axiom is true and we are correct to apply physics to nature. In other words, do we possess this inherent knowledge or not? Of course, this question cannot be answered and it can only be left to the reader to come to their own conclusions as to how they believe nature to behave.

Krea 15:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I will cease cluttering your page with my comments and will instead post my replies on my own comment page (unless you see any objection). Feel free to delete any of the comments I have made here and do not feel obliged to keep them for my benefit. Krea 23:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I've castrated my definition and it is, as a result, much tamer. I've found a renewed vigour to finish this definition (for the time being at least) and so could you take a look at it and get back to me (before my conscience forces me to concentrate on work again). Krea 01:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Identifying spider

Hey, Patrick...

Was reading your Identifying spiders page, and it looks good. My only concern is that it might be more appropriate for WikiBooks than for Wikipedia itself, as it is venturing into the "how-to" category of article. As an analogy; an article on casseroles is appropriate subject matter for Wikipedia; but recepies for casseroles are not. Which isn't (or shouldn't) be a big deal--Wikipedia and Wikibooks can link to each other rather freely and easily.

What do you think? --EngineerScotty 21:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've now fixed up spider to deal with some of your objections. The article as-is is too long; I've moved all the stuff on spider bites to one section; which I now invite you to move to spiders having medically significant venom. Several other classes of spiders, including the Steatoda, Macrothele, and various tarantulas, still aren't mentioned here.

The "spider types" section needs to be cleaned up (it's currently sorted more by web than by taxonomy), and much of it probably should be moved to sub-articles.

Perhaps a spider template is needed.  :) --EngineerScotty 22:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've moved much of the content about spider bites, and their significance (that is currently on spider) to spiders having medically significant venom. Hope you don't mind. If you like it structured this way; I would then scale back the content which is in spider (spider has been left alone so far), so that the size of spider is more reasonable. We still need sections on false black widows, Macrothele, and tarantulas. --EngineerScotty 23:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medically significant Liphistiidae

Patrick,

You recently edited the article Liphistiidae to indicate that some species may have medically significant venom; however no members of this family are listed on spiders having medically significant venom, and I can't find any references to venomous spiders of this family in the literature. Might you be thinking of genus Macrothele, which is in Hexathelidae? Or did you have something else in mind?

Also, check out Steatoda nobilis, Mouse spider, and Actinopodidae, and have at them.  :)

--EngineerScotty 05:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the sources in Chines I was looking at have been yanked. It may have made reference to "Mesothelae", which is just the "container" for Liphistiidae, there being no other extant genus. The particular spider was in Taiwan, rarely seen, horrific reputation but some actual bites. I remember checking it the last time this topic came up, but now I can't retrieve the right article. I should remember to always archive this stuff. I'll have another go at it, especially since the one article I did recover had no mention. P0M 06:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I just found a refrence to Macrothele in Taiwan, which seem not to have caused any obvious problems. I remember the article I saw before referred to remote places in the mountains and legends that you were dead if you even saw one, which of course was going a bit far. P0M 14:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] galleries

hi patrick,

Some freaky spider (Portia?)
Some freaky spider (Portia?)

i stumbled over some pages you started, Araneae taxonomy (which you apparently abandoned, i'll see what i'll make of it), and Identifying spiders. i wanted to give you the hint not to use the "gallery" template so undiscriminating, it really clobbers the site. also, one good picture is often better that five or so that are nearly identical. Check Help:Image for further details. I would suggest to place pictures at the right, so the text can flow undisturbed, like the example here. if you have any questions, don't hesitate to contact me :) --Sarefo 23:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More spidey stuff

I wrote an article on the Chilean recluse (which is also found in Brazil, among other places). According to this article [3] (in Portugese, run it through google's translator and it's quite legible), a few interesting things:

  • The Chilean recluse (L. laeta) appears to be the spider that causes the most problems with regard to human envenomations, not the Brazilian wandering spider. It's caused quite a few deaths in Chile alone; about 1/6 of reported bites involve systemic reactions; and about 3-4% of reported bites over the years have been fatal. (If I read the studies correctly). A study by a local prof here in Portland, Greta Binford of Lewis and Clark College, found that L. laeta venom was similar in many ways to the six-eyed sand spider; however, unlike the sand spider, L. laeta is common in people's homes and will bite if stepped on or otherwise molseted.
  • The local widow, Latrodectus curacaviensis, appears to have weaker venom than does L. mactans or L. hasselti; widely reputed to be the most dangerous widows.

I'll let you make desicions as how to update the medically singificant page (whatever we decide to call it. :)

--EngineerScotty 21:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And still more spidey stuff

Have another new article about another old-world tarantula sub-family: baboon spider. Unlike some tarantula taxa, which are only described in non-free research journals or collector's forums like arachnoboards, these critters have lots of good references available on the web; many are listed in the article. This article leaves lots of stuff out (it's bedtime and I'm tired), but it's a good start. Feel free to add lots of good stuff!

On a related note, I'm thinking that a {{spider}} template might be a good idea one day.

Cheers,

--EngineerScotty 06:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] romanization, etc.

Thanks for your comments. I am away for a couple of days. will respond then. Best to you Lindsay658 05:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The piece on romanization in Standard Mandarin is now revised (anything that was in the "Romanization" section that was not incorrect, has been included in the revision). Also, on the basis of the ease of reading and the simplicity of writing it was better to deal with the "non-Chinese" before the "Chinese" in the two parts. Best to you. Lindsay658 23:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nowiki

I think you messed up the Talk:racism page with that (nowiki) notation you added. Can you fix it?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Spiders

hi, i started the project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spiders. Feel free to contribute/change/idle by ;) if you know somebody else who could be interested (i already contacted scotty), tell 'em :) --Sarefo 15:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Spider project, and thx for forwarding this message to Richman :) I moved the section about spider behavior to the Talk page of the newly created Spider behavior; i'm trying to keep the Project page as concise as possible, so people can get a fast overview over the thing. and yes, i also find spider behavior is much neglected. of course, it's easier to shake a tree, kill all the spiders you catch, carry them to a museum, and determine the species ten years later, than to actually climb that tree, and watch what these little critters do for a living ;) but i would *very* much appreciate more information on this topic :) --Sarefo 15:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] spider pics

i created a little section for unknown spider pictures on WPSpiders: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spiders/General#Undetermined_pictures. I thought maybe you have an idea what the 'sugar cane spider' could be. cheers --Sarefo 07:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Or are there even already featured pictures of spiders? iirc, some pics by aka and olei were pretty amazing. --Sarefo 03:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The young man in Australia (Fir0002) who posted the Atrax pix has had several featured pictures. I don't recall which ones.
  • I posted several by him. --Sarefo 02:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remodeling the Spider taxonomy section

hi patrick,

I started cleaning up, and outsourcing parts of the Spider taxonomy section. I strongly think that it should not go down to such a level as to list eight species of widows (for example), or to explicitly describe the genus Steatoda (why this one and not any of the other 3600 genera). I also do not think that information on venomousness should be emphasized that much in a taxonomy section; that's what the Spider bites page should be there for. If people really think they're about to die in the next ten minutes, and look for help on WP, I think they will be able to click one page further to get all the information they need, while the taxonomy section will benefit the people interested in taxonomy. I will first check if I can find a consistent level of detail in the section, and try to create a thread of information that gives a good overview. Then, I will possibly check what information can be transferred to Spider taxonomy; and when that is done, see if the taxo section on Spider can be shortened to a summary of the Spider taxonomy page. --Sarefo 02:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good work on spider envenomations

I've cleaned it up a bit; added a few section headers; and merged your prose with what followed. (Also--I must apologize, I suppose--I de-gallery-ized your images; the <gallery> format is good for additional pictures at the end of an article or section; but not as good for things referenced directly from within the article. Usually, you're stylistically better off with inline images. --EngineerScotty 06:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I've now requested a move to spider bite; the move requires an admin to perform. Check it out. --EngineerScotty 05:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new article about venomous spiders

hi, check out this new article by Ed Nieuwenhuys. I haven't read it yet, but it seems that he thinks most aren't really that big a problem. thought you might be interested. btw, the atrax pic looks familiar :) cheers --Sarefo 00:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I will read it. Ed has a terrific website, and he's a responsible person. P0M 01:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I just had a quick look at it. Two immediate comments: (1) He appears to squash the range of symptoms quite a bit, that is to say he mentions Yellow Sac spiders in practically the same breath as Black Widows. There is a big difference between the two. (2) He appears awfully dogmatic and qualitative in his evaluations. I would rather believe the medical sources I have cited in our article than some non-medical person's assurances. You may have very few serious outcomes from Widow bites in a place with advanced hospital care because the people who get bitten and experience no major symptoms don't get into the system, but the ones who start having trouble get prompt care and when they are discharged nobody writes, "This guy would have died if not for my excellent care," on their charts. If they are doing their job the guy never gets close because they have managed symptoms as they appear. On the other hand, how many people in the slums of Bangladesh die of untended spider bites that never even get reported?
I am troubled by the wide range of some of the numbers in the chart in the "spider bite" article, but I know from personal experience that measuring things in a lab is always tied to methodology. My guess is that two researchers could measure the amount of venom available in a mature widow spider and get numberical results that even differed by an order of magnitude -- but that is a consequence of how they make their measurements and what would be really significant would be the relative amounts from several species as measured by the same lab. And the LD-50 results are almost a joke because primates are missing an enzyme or something that lets rabbits and other lab animals laugh at some toxins that knock humans over.
Somebody just sent me a newspaper article about an "epidemic" of yellow sac spiders. People were freaking out and flooding emergency rooms for supposed bites. Hardly any of the bites were real spider bites. The newspapers had gone ape on one or two supposed bites. That kind of thing is bad for public health because it could overwhelm emergency rooms when they were needed for real life-threatening events.
A day or two ago somebody posted his personal account of three days of rather extreme discomfort from a black widow bite. I believe him. I've seen a similar report by a guy who was bitten by one of the Indian aboreal tarantulas. The only thing about it that I can't figure out is why that guy didn't get himself admitted to a hospital. So I think we need to tell people, "Don't pick a fight with one of those spiders. Educate your kids to have a healthy respect for them." On the other hand, warnings and hype in the press about "attacks" by the fearsome red-back jumping spider are alarmist nonsense, and people should be told to tell warn their kids about them at the same level of concern that a level-headed parent warns the kids not to step on honey bees with their bare feet.
So people need some guide as to whether to freak out about something.
I can at least use my personal experience to inform what I put into articles, i.e., it gives me an independent source of information about what is reasonable. I've studied a couple species that get bad press, Heteropoda venatoria and Phidippus johnsoni. The guy I've bought some spiders from always notes both of them as aggressive and venomous in his advertisements, but I've never seen any indication that either one of them would approach me. The most I can see is that the Huntsman is frantic in its attempts to get away from me if I have to disturb it to clean its cage, and that if I could manage to catch her somehow she would probably bite to get away. The P. johnsoni is totally laid back, doesn't even make a threat display, yet I'm pretty sure she would bite me if I caused her any pain. I have never seen any indication that the Black Widow I kept for a year was ever even aware of my presence. If one of them dropped onto me I would just let it get itself on off too because I'm pretty sure that a spider like that has no idea that it is on a living creature. But I would never urge her onto my hand the way I've played with jumping spiders because I believe what I've read about the amount of pain and damage that would follow a bite. From the pictures I've seen of the Brazillian and Australian bad girls, they would rather bite than risk turning their back on an intruder. I wouldn't want to be in the position of suggesting to anybody that they "don't need to worry about" the spiders we have marked as "very dangerous."


yes, i read the article about the yellow sac spider too, indeed created a page for it: Cheiracanthium punctorium :) --Sarefo 15:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lycosa tarantula

See here :)

[edit] Spider ref conversion

In preparation for a good article nomination (step 1 to a FAC nomination--this article is good enough, with some cleanup, to be a feature article), I've converted most of the refs to use the {{cite whatever}} templates (cite journal, cite book, cite web mainly). Four or so refs are unconverted.

Two of them are broken links; one to someting on medline; and the other to a Taiwanese site. I think you added both.

The other two... are links to various spider bulletin boards. I hate to be rude--but these are not reliable sources, and claims based on these should either be removed, or a better source located. If this were to go to FAC with those sources in the reference list, having these sources backing up claims would cause the article to be bounced quickly. In general, the spider bulletin boards (and I've read lots of things posted there) are full of outrageous claims, rumor, speculation, and wishful thinking, and should not be cited by Wikipedia at all. I apologize if this rains on your parade... but the article is better without them, I think.

Fortunately, legitimate references appear to exist. The arachnoboards article, which you cite for the LD50 of funnel-webs, refers to a paper "Sheumack et al 1983, 1984, 1985"; I'll look for that and find a better reference, and cite that directly.

  • Done; the arachnoboards site is no longer referenced.

I know where to find better references considering Chinese Bird Spider venom; I'll put those in too.

That leaves claims that Poecilotheria tarantulas have caused serious medical problems from their bite. One reliable source I did find (abstract only) is at [4], another is at [5] (also abstract only, and the abstract is useless). Other interesting links are at [6], and [7].

Let me know what you think... --EngineerScotty 22:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] spider keys

hi patrick,

i just found the page Cobweb habitude spiders, seems to be one of your project of providing keys to determine the more conspicuous spider species that are out there. Have you ever thought about doing a guide like this on http://en.wikibooks.org ? I think if you continued this project, it could grow rather unwieldy on en.wp. cheers --Sarefo 10:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tarantula

Thanks a lot. I forgot to add a comprehensive description for the photograph. Regards, --Asteriontalk 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject_Asian_martial_arts

This project seems to have died - you're listed as a participant, perhaps we can join with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_Arts (which also seems to have died) and revitalise the aims of both. -- Medains 08:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lang Map China.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lang Map China.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 00:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eliade

Hi. I could not figure a way of adding an explanation that would not make the talk page even less legible, so I am answering here. Although the question was rephrased by Jmabel himself, I'm answering by indicating it was I who had added sections on the 1930s Eliade. The indented bits following that message were actually fragments from the text,as I believed Jmabel had not noticed them (as it looked before he rephrased his question). It's even more confusing, I guess, but allow me to dodge responsability by saying it was not I who first indented text (in fact, I have been annoyed that the person who did it split my point in the process). Dahn 21:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Aurantia qrtr.THMB.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Aurantia qrtr.THMB.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sullivan

I like your way of distinguishing the "horse whisperer" tradition as one that is linked to, but distinct from, the dressage tradition. You put it well.

What I need to do, and if you have not, I recommend it, is to review Lamb and Miller's book, Revolution in Horsemanship, where the authors provide a short set of histories of many, many, many of the people in this tradition. Worth double-checking what you are doing against what they have. I'm not familiar with Sullivan, so would have to research a bit to comment any further.

If you want to put up a bit on another forgotten person in this tradition, check out Charles O. Williamson, my personal favorite...author of Breaking and Training the Stock Horse, he doesn't really credit any one individual as his inspiration, but clearly was after the same goals.

What strikes me, as I am simultaneously being bombarded with the popularity of the horse whisperer model, and am also spending time reading or re-reading works by those who advocate for baroque/classical dressage traditions (as opposed to some of the more mechanized modern dressage techniques) such as Alois Podhajsky and Henry Wynmalen, or, more recently, Paul Belasik or Klaus Ferdinand Hempfling, is that there is a social class distinction in these traditions that is worth exploring. The Baroque/classical tradition was clearly one of the nobility; the horse whisperers were more populist. Same basic goals--people should train horses with kindness and such, but sort of like comparing the Episcopalians to the Baptists in religion, if you see the analogy... or in Spain, perhaps clearly the difference between the aristocracy, who had time on their hands to take years developing a horse to the highest levels of perfection, and the peasants or serfs, who worked cattle for the aristocracy, who had a job to do and it needed to get done fast. Both social classes produced horse trainers who used brutal methods and those who used gentle methods...hmmm

So, no other comments on the article, it looks good, and I really like where you are going with explaining how there are two traditions out there with similar, complementary goals. Creates a nice tone.

And as for my social strata notions, just some food for thought. Montanabw 20:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inside the mind of Heisenberg

I wouldn't worry about trying to deduce what Heisenberg was trying to say -- even Steve Weinberg says he can't follow Heisenberg's train of deductive thought in his original article. Just concentrate on trying to explain QM as currently understood. --Michael C. Price talk 22:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article with your material in it

Human genetic history--Filll 01:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cool video

on your user page--Filll 01:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support

I am not super interested in racial issues (although where I live is one of the most racially charged environments in the US) and I have no special knowledge of race-related sciences. In fact if you look, I have made almost NO edits at all to the article, except maybe to add a comma or two or correct a spelling mistake. And I do not intend to edit the article itself. I only intend to encourage the real authors/editors of the article and move the article in a hopefully constructive direction. Barring that, ANY direction is better than it being mired in a logjam.

I first visited the page when I responded to a request for aid by a senior editor. The page was locked for weeks on end and the discussion on the talk page often descended into madness. Several people were so combative on the talk page that they were banned or blocked. Some might have been banned forever because I have not seen them return. I believe editingoprah was one of the people that had a temporary ban.

Many of these people have very strong personal feelings about what it is to be black. The problem is, they do not agree with each other. And in an encyclopedia, you have to put down all the relevant information, whether you agree with it or not, as long as you have it properly referenced to good quality references. It is not our job to judge the different material or slant it one way or another.

The senior staff have ALWAYS suggested breaking it into different articles because there is so much content. If you look at the histories you will see how much stuff people wanted to put in. Most people just gave up because the fighting was so horrible. Even the senior editor I came to help became frustrated and left the page for good some weeks ago.

A lot of stuff that is said on the talk page I disagree with quite vehemently, but I usually encourage them to just document it and put it in the article. There were two exceptions yesterday however.

One was the young lad who didnt believe in evolution because of fundamentalist Christian beliefs. I should not have come down hard on him but creationists are a hot button issue for me I am afraid. What I should have done more of is to encourage him to write something that we could put in the article, even if it was total nonsense. At least with a reference or two, and careful wording, we could show one of the fringe ideas about race that exist.

I tried hard last evening to not attack editingoprah for what seem like some of the most outlandish, unfounded screwball ideas I have ever heard. Scientists are all politically correct liberals and always were? Scientists do not want to give ammunition to racists so they are hiding their results that "races" really exist? I am dumbfounded. I should suggest capturing it in the article, but I do not think any references for this exist.

I am glad I was able to help you with your efforts a bit. I hopefully have helped others and I will be able to help you more in the future. I think having some scientific information helps in racial discussions, otherwise we are just talking pure nonsense. And the way things go, the uglier aspects of pure nonsense always seem to win out over the other types. I think it does help to have a voice of reason or two to help bolster a person's position, so they do not feel so isolated, and that is what I can offer. Hopefully eventually the article will lurch towards some more reasonable compromise. Do not give up. Many of these really racially fervent editors are around for a few days or a week or two, and then vanish into the ether.--Filll 15:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks, but you got it wrong

Patrick, earlier today I was perusing an article about physics, and noticed that someone had put a bold sentence asking someone to change the grammar of the previous sentence because it was confusing. I felt that the request should be in the discussion rather than in the article itself, so I deleted the request from the text of the article.

Then I received a message from you implying that I had put that request in the article, and saying that such things should be in discussion rather than in the article text. Yeah, man, I feel the same way. That's why I took it out. I don't know who put it there, but it wasn't me. Basically, I just wanted to clarify a misunderstanding, and ask that you look carefully at edits people make before rebuking them for doing the exact opposite of what they actually did. Thanks.

Kenny V 06:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black people

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Black People, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gottoupload 23:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, can you please not make so many edits to the black people article in 1 day. Try to limit yourself to just 1 major edit in 1 day. The article used to be quite stable but ever since you arrived it's been constant edit wars. I'm not sure what your problem is but it's causing a huge disruption. Kobrakid 19:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What's there to meditate? You didnt respond to my answer in Talk:Black_people#Removed_one_line_for_study Thulean 19:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black person

Come edit this article instead.--Filll 23:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok then never mind. If you look at the black people talk page you can see that everything was reversed, along with a huge amount of bullying. Basically what is done is the race card is pulled out, and once you are called a racist, you are not allowed to change anything. Part of what is going on is that black people really love the concept of race, because as long as race is a real thing, they have power. Once you say race is gone, they are rudderless.--Filll 23:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I looked at the FORK page and I see what you mean. They had some other suggestions, but I see that there is a HUGE effort on the part of some black editors to keep it racist and keep science out. It might seem strange, but they think that the existence of different races strengthens their hand, since without the concept of race, they have nothing to rant and rave about. Just look at how hard editingoprah defends what is basically a racist point of view. And she is not the only black like that associated with the page. I would say I have encountered another 10 or 20 like her. Part of the problem is that they do not agree with each other, and this has lead to huge fights over the exact direction of the page.--Filll 06:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Just as I predicted. It will be almost impossible to change from the current version. Editingoprah and others like her will defend this version to the death, because they can use the racism card against anyone changing it. It does not matter what reality is, or that the version they currently have is more racist than what it might be replaced with. They want this version because they want this version.--Filll 02:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Books

I have basically resigned myself to just watching the "black people" article as it flounders in a very subjective and unacademic and biased cesspool. As I said before, it is basically a carbon copy of what is taught in black studies departments at universities, and you cannot really argue with it because it is viewed as the private domain of black people. Period. And even though the material is racist, they do not care. They just rant and rave and scream and then it is all over.--Filll 03:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Now having been kicked sharply in the shins a few more times I am ready to remove black people from my watch list. I have just about had enough. It is the province of a particular group with a particular agenda, and I think it cannot be changed in the face of that. And somehow I get blamed for the current state of the article as well, which makes no sense to me. Oh well. Interesting, but not in a good way. --Filll 02:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind note. I am feeling more optimistic now. The good thing about following the black people page is that (1) I have mostly kept the other editors from tearing each other to shreds and the page did get edited a bit and moved ahead from where it was frozen some months ago and (2) I have a much better understanding now of all the different "black" factions and their views. I have learned a lot that I did not know very well before. The bad part is that my efforts have ended up getting me in the line of fire a few times. And it is hard for me to not be sarcastic from time to time.

I did study a few years of quantum mechanics, but I do classical physics. I am interested in lots of things. I like history and biography. I like linguistics. I like to ponder the way the mind works. I am interested in physics and applied math of course (professionally) including astrophysics and geophysics and meteorology and filter design and optics etc etc. I am interested in diet. I am interested in consciousness. I am interested in vocabulary. I am interested in medical imaging. I am interested in exercise. I taught aerobics and studied jazz modern and ballet for a few years. I am interested in differential geometry. I am interested in art and creativity. I am interested as an observer in politics. I like museums. I like trivia. And so on...--Filll 05:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Guys, do not remove Black People from your watchlists. Take a break from it, but do not abandon it. I took a step back and spent some time merely observing the article, a strategy that helped me a lot. Now I feel fresh, and ready to deal with the issues. It seems that all the reasonable people are abandonig the article, leaving those with fringe views to controll the article. --Ezeu 12:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thulean/Lukas19

I see that you are one of the roughly 10 people who has had trouble with this user Lukas19 in about a one month period. I have noticed a disturbing pattern. Take a look at his talk page for more details.--Filll 23:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation case

Now that I have skimmed the Mediation case (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-08 Black people) I see that we have a much bigger problem than I realized. Editingoprah and his or her sock puppets have been causing problems for a long long time. I think that if Editingoprah/Kobrakid/Timelist etc does not want to adopt their own article to edit and leave this one alone, we should get them barred from this article. It is clear that they have had some sort of crazy irrational agenda for many months that no one else agrees with. I am sorry to sound so harsh but that is what it looks like to me. I should have realized this sooner.--Filll 14:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

He or she seems to realize that they cannot continue in this manner so is being cooperative at the moment. If it returns to previous form, however, we might want to pursue this with vigor. There are at least 5 of us who would sign on board, and many more I think. I think we have scared the editor in question at the moment sufficiently so he is being better.--Filll 00:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black people (ethnicity)

I think that a case can be made to satisfy Timelist and possible associates with this article, but I think that he or she has irritated so many other editors that it will summarily be deleted, and we will be back to square one. We will be unable to make editing progress again unless we ban Timelist. So what should we do?--Filll 18:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

We cannot ban Timelist. We can initiate proceedings if that course of action seems necessary. I think the first step is to establish a clear paper trail. In my memory, when I first tried to correct a simple lack of citation I first had lots of comment from Editingoprah and the s/he disappeared for a while and Timelist appeared. I don't see that change as an indication of sock puppetry. A change of names didn't change any of the real-world dynamics. But there does seem to be a commonality of point of view among 2 or 3 such contributors and I suppose we need to document how they have avoided fulfilling the basic requirements such as providing citations and not writing individual research into article content. P0M 19:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I was not clear enough. I thought I had reached a semi compromise with Timelist and associates. He or she was willing to back off from the main article to develop his or her more restrictive viewpoint in another article. Now Wobble and Halaqah are ganging up to delete the article. I was able to convince Wobble to consider keeping it but just renaming it. Halaqh is so irritated by this point he just wants to delete Timelist's article, the sooner the better. Then we will back to where we started with Timelist attacking the main article. So we can ask to have him blocked from the main article, or put up with his interference, or give him his own article. What do you think we should do?--Filll 20:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Let me get caught up with grading, etc. After the seventeenth I'll either be through with grading or in deep trouble. So far I haven't seen any ill intent on the part of anybody except the wingnuts having conventional rotation, so I am not worried about any of the people you have mentioned. Remember that to get any of these things done requires lots of process. Even articles that seem to me to be highly questionable have survived requests for deletion. P0M 00:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

So how did you do on my quiz? Put it on my talk page.--Filll 05:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Burned out

I think we are all basically burned out at black people now. I was amazed at lactose intolerance when I was taken to task that Caucasians are not the name that is used for white people and no one supposedly uses this term. Huh? What planet are they from? I feel like I am Alice who just fell down the rabbit hole! Sure is news to me that no one uses the name "caucasian" as synonymous with "white people". I also made some efforts to improve a section or two of the evolution article and just about had my leg chewed off. I start to see why people take wikibreaks.--Filll 22:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Holy cow, they did delete black people (ethnicity). I am still fairly new here and still learning the ways of Wikipedia I guess. It probably takes a little experience and some observation to learn how it all works, or does not work. I know he can get it userfied and work on it there, and possibly if we can build some sort of consensus for what way to go forward something like this can be useful. Now black people (terminology) has been hit with a merge notice. I was enjoying having a fairly quiet space in which to work out and compile the diverse definitions, since it is not fought over like black people itself for some reason. It is somewhat interesting to me that American standard usage like:
  • Taking "caucasian" to mean roughly "of white European descent"
  • Taking "black" to mean roughly "of recent West African Subsaharan ancestry"

are not only not recognized by others in other places (which is slightly surprising given the global flood of media), but treated with such hostility. I think it is obvious that there is no clear agreement as to usage in these cases. But I am amazed that there is very strong disagreement in various quarters to the idea that there is no agreement. Am I that provincial? I guess so. I am a lot less provincial than most Americans I meet, so what does this say about them? This might be an interesting indication of something if it is not just a Wikipedia phenomenon (which I am not sure is or is not true).--Filll 14:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translations

Since you seem to have a facility with languages perhaps you could take a look at the collection of translations we have been compiling at Translations of Frère Jacques and at Alternative lyrics to Frère Jacques. I think we would be glad to have any suggestions or corrections. Thanks--Filll 15:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. As you can tell, we have a few holes in some of our versions. Some are missing a line or two. Some we only have the title. I want to compile the world's longest and most complete set of lyrics, however, in as many languages as possible. I gave up in doing it in English since I found with very little effort hundreds of sets of alternate lyrics. Therefore, I am trying to concentrate mainly on versions that have something to do with sleeping and bells.--Filll 14:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Physics lead

I notice that you have given some constructive criticism to new proposed physics leads. Being a physicist myself, I have some interest in this so I scratched out a proposed lead and some notes myself. Maybe you might care to take a look? I put my contribution at Talk:Physics/wip--Filll 18:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lynx spiders

hi patrick,

i'm currently sorting a bit the undetermined spider pictures at the commons, and stumbled about one picture, that you determined as a lynx spider: Arachnida Spinne.jpg. Judging from the eye position, it is definitely not a lynx spider. then i found this picture on the Oxyopidae page, and it doesn't look too much like a lynx spider to me either. what reference did you use when determining these species? cheers --Sarefo 09:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] New intro

Thanks for the edits. futurebird 02:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Malcolm X and User talk:206.27.244.59

Hi. Don't you think you were a little harsh toward this editor, whose only "offense" was offering an opinion about an article without registering first?

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Somebody who is not even a registered user probably shouldn't be grading the articles, no?

Look at the editor's other contributions. She/he's hardly a vandal. Malik Shabazz 06:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks for your thoughts on the RFC

Race and intelligence We need fresh voices around there, it's just the same few people going back and forth, thanks for weighing in. futurebird 23:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pom-pon

Hi. Your move request for the Pom-pon article has generated some discussion at Talk:Pom-pon. I'm letting you know in case you're interested in participating. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback

I'd love to have your feedback on these proposed changes:

  1. Change Media section- change to match sub-article
  2. Change Utility of research- change to match sub-article
  3. Possible revision of text about race as a proxy-I've proposed two revisions here, if they don't work... why?
  4. New Intro Sentence

futurebird 19:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for responding to my request. Your comments are so helpful!futurebird 21:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


I think that I found a source that will work ... see my comments at Talk: R& I: Utility of researchfuturebird 04:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Wei4.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Wei4.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (t) 05:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Family, clan, tribe

Thanks, Patrick, for your long and eloquent answer about "otherness" [8]. Does gaijin literally mean "outside person"? That's fascinating, because Japanese Unification Church members in my acquaintance typically refer to non-members this way in English. Although the division is not always so sharp. Japanese members involved in outreach or evangelism use a triune division into:

  1. members
  2. guests
  3. outside people

It always hurts me a bit when I hear the term "outside people" used, because one of our church songs goes, "Underneath our differences we all are one." And St. Paul wrote in Gal. 3:26-29:

  • "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

One Bible commentary notes:

  • These verses pair groupings or concepts that separate people and keep them divided and sometimes at war with each other. [9]

I hear black people use words like "brother" or even "n_____" to mean a fellow black.

On the other hand, whites (particularly in psychology) think and speak specfically about white people when they say "people are (blank)", as if blacks or Amerinds were not "the only people who are people". Disney's Pocahontas sings about this in "Colors of the Wind".

Everyone does it, but I wish they wouldn't. Aren't we all in this together? --Uncle Ed 11:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ed, hi,
I don't think you should feel too hurt by the gaijin tag. (It's 外人, wai4 ren2 in Chinese, gai jin when the Japanese give it their version of whatever Chinese dialect they "stole" it in hundreds of years ago.) Like the "N" word, the denotation is neutral. (The Latin for the color names, with a doubled consonant and an anglicized pronunciation becomes the slur. It all has to do with ignorance.) Any term that people start to use as a neutral designation for a group that is different slides over into a slur very easily. (Take "retarded" for instance.) People can take the sting out of words by adopting them as their own. (I've used this technique with phobia reduction, too.) What is most at stake is the intent behind the use of any word. Little Chinese kids in Taiwan use the Taiwanese terms "hook nose," "beak nose," etc. without any hint of animosity. (Their reaction to foreigners is like our reaction to a unicorn would be. We would remark on the great protruberance too.)
I have two lady therapist friends. Neither is a WASP or a WAS Catholic. They both should be prejudice-free to be ideal therapists, but they are instead human. One can get along with Japanese and thinks bad things about Chinese, and the other is her mirror image on the subject. Why? From one experience with one of the ladies I think the problem is that each has an "unconscious" idea of how people should behave. They know a "violation" when they see one, but they have never asked themselves why doing things a certain way feels so wrong to them.
Japanese and Americans use one opposing set of behavioral gender signals, and none of us are aware of what we are doing. American males tip their pelvises back (pulling the genitals away from a person facing them). Japanese males tip their pelvises forward. American females tip their pelvises forward, and Japanese females tip their pelvises away from people facing them. That kind of thing can provoke an unconscious "Something is wrong here!" reaction that gnaws at the edge of one's consciousness. That's just an example that's easy to describe. Evidently people with cameras who know what they are looking for can document it easily. It's right out in plain sight, but nobody sees it.
I've got to quit now. Time to go to work. P0M 14:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting vandalism

Thanks for reverting vandalism here on Black People. Unfortunately, the vandal had made a series of edits, not just one. It's something to watch for. Jd2718 13:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qigong

Greetings P0M. Could you look in at the qigong article? A pro-Falungong editor has removed info about FLG, and I realise that I may not be looking at the situation neutrally. To avoid an(other) FLG edit war, I haven't reverted more than once. The Falungong articles are currently being arbitrated (to which I am an involved party) and that makes me hesitant to jump in as well. Your opinion, no matter how it goes, will be appreciated. --Fire Star 火星 21:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race and health

Can you help with the wording and content of the opening paragraphs? futurebird 22:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of David Nivison

A tag has been placed on David Nivison, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Od Mishehu 12:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speed of light controversy

I just got your note. It looks like there has been a great deal of discussion since you left the message. From what I can tell, the issue has been resolved. Is that true, or did I miss something?Complexica 15:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/t/User_talk%7EPatrick0Moran_a768.html"