User talk:Danras

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] A welcome from Sango123

Hello, Danras, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

–Sango123 (e) 03:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

[edit] Your "example" test

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. - Eagletalk 03:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economic progress

I admit my wording was unduly harsh. But tell me, is this article a discussion of other people's ideas, the way they have presented them? Or is it a discussion of your opinions as informed by other people? Gazpacho 17:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Symmetrical Relativity

I never heard of "symmetrical relativity" when I was a physics student, and Google hasn't heard of it, either. If this material isn't cited and verifiable then it's original research, whether or not you personally invented it, and it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions, but we are writing an encyclopedia here and can only use verifiable material.

If you have references you can cite for this article, then please add them. If not, I'll propose this page for deletion. --Craig Stuntz 13:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that another user is AfDing the articles now. You may want to express your opinion in that discussion. Also, please don't take this personally. Your contributions on subjects for which there is an existing body of work which can be used to verify the writing are entirely welcome. Whether or not something is in fact true, it must be notable and verifiable in order to be included in Wikipedia. I hope you'll continue to contribute on subjects for which you can cite sources. --Craig Stuntz 20:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Symmetrical Relativity

Your recent edit to Symmetrical Relativity (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 18:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to move a page

Don't move pages with cut-and-paste. This obscures article histories and interrupts discussions. Instead use the article move feature.

I request that you tag Relativity (consistent with general principle) for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G7. You can do this by putting {{db-author}} at the top of the page. Once an admin deletes the page, you can use the move tab at the top of the article to correctly move the article to your preferred title without disrupting the article history or the conversation in talk.

Thank you, --Craig Stuntz 18:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assume Good Faith / Personal attacks in edit summaries

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. Please avoid using abusive edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks and happy editing.--Craig Stuntz 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comments to those who disagree with you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symmetrical Relativity are unwarranted and unproductive. You've stated your opinion; personal jabs at other users will not help drive the point home. Please allow the process to continue without further disruption. Kafziel 01:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption.

These comments, here, and here, are completely unacceptable. Byrgenwulf 19:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

The article in question is about relativity. The people who respond allegedly are smart enough to know something about it. The last one claimed to have a PhD in Physics. If I say something implying that commenters lack intelligence, I do not think they are that offended. If you look at some replies, you will see that some clearly indicate that position.

Some who write call me "complete bullocks" which is offensive by the definition applied to me. If anyone has chastised them about it, please apologize to them. I disagree with what they say, but I value free speech. Please do not disrupt intellectual discussion and the sorting out of whose position is most intelligent and whose is not. Intelligent people are tough, and the same rules that apply at a social club for grandmothers, do not apply here.

Secondly, I am from the United States where criticism is acceptable. If an editorial cartoonist depicts the U.S. President wearing a fool's cap, nobody is offended. In some countries, if one depicted the leader that way, it would be deeply offensive, and one would be thrown in jail. Please do not engage in cultural imperialism, by imposing foreign standards of acceptable behavior on Americans. Please apologize to me as an American for your imperialism. Perhaps a second English wikipedia can be created for societies that do not tolerate critcism and the original one left for those who allow free speech. --Danras 02:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counter Reply

I refuse to apologise for imperialism, for I see nothing wrong with imperialism. No-one called you complete bollocks, but many have realised that symmetrical relativity is complete bollocks. And yes, if you're in the mood for such comments, I think that symmetrical relativity is a downright stupid idea, and represents a series of gross misunderstandings of both Einstein's work and simple physical truths.
Regardless, an AfD is not a place for sorting out whose position is most intelligent (much less which editor is the most intelligent). I don't really care about whether or not people are offended: I don't get offended easily, either. But, any truly intelligent person, who has an understanding of logic and argumentation, knows that arguments cannot be won by attacking the people: an argument can only be won by attacking opposing arguments.
Saying "you are wrong because you're stupid" doesn't work. Saying "you are wrong because your argument implies blablabla, which is false" is much better. Criticism of arguments is fine, but in civilised society, even in America, it is considered improper to argue about things like science and philosophy by attacking the personal character of people involved. Byrgenwulf 11:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counter Counter Reply

Your argument is self-serving. Your user page lists you as a deletionist, which means you engage in censorship. This does not mean you are a censor -- that would be a personal attack. It only means that you engage in censorship. Despite your claim to be a knowledgeable critic of relativity, I know this distinction is important to you.

As a deleter of articles, you do not have to have real understanding of articles you vote to delete. You do not have to give a reason, although it is considered good sportsmanship to give a vague reason. The individual whose article is being attacked cannot compel would be deleters to give serious reasons for their attack. You say an individual can win an argument by attacking opposing arguments, but that tactic will not work if there are none. Personal attacks and ridicule serve a purpose in provoking would be deleters into giving arguments. Such attacks help ensure that there is a fair fight.

You do not want to engage in fair fights. You want to attack others while ensuring that you are not bloodied in the process. You want to exalt yourself at the expense of people of merit. Let us not kid ourselves about your motivations. On your user page, you say you are probably going to hell. You should add another line to it saying why. --Danras 00:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C3 Reply

I suppose it comes down to whether or not one regards censorship as a bad thing. I am vehemently against censorship when it comes down to personal moral values or suchlike. But, since Wikipedia is used by millions as a source of information, I believe very firmly that all the information here should be accurate. If it is not, then many unsuspecting reader, students, people trying to educate themselves, might be taken in and tricked into believing nonsense.
As for deletion arguments, unfortunately articles cannot be deleted because the ideas described in them are wrong; despite Linas' imprecations. Articles are deleted if they do not meet Wikipedia policies and are unable to do so. Symmetrical relativity falls into that category.
But it is also just plain wrong. As the simplest example, the expression you have given for \gamma = (1-\sqrt{v^2/c^2})^{-1}is completely incorrect; a ridiculously elementary mistake. The rest of the article is fraught with similar errors: as Anville pointed out, the article begins with a misconception, and degenerates from there. One bad premise can lead to a whole argument falling down. While it is conceivable that there is some theory that might lead credence to the claims made in the article, such a theory would need to be proven, and the article does not do that; but not only would the theory have to be proven, it would have to be acquitted at the tribunal of experiment, something I doubt that "symmetric relativity" could do. Simply saying something doesn't make it true, even if, on a naive reading, it might accord with the facts, which again, "symmetric relativity" doesn't.
I am not going to indulge in further argument here, because it is fruitless to argue with someone who thinks they understand something better than anyone else but clearly doesn't understand it very much at all.
I do not seriously believe I am going to Hell, because I am an atheist. There is no Hell. But if there were, the reason I would go there is simply that non serviam. Byrgenwulf 07:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C4 Reply

If a mistaken article is viewed by millions, some knowledgeable person is bound to correct it. It should be accurate and polished. Many articles only attract the interest of only a few people. They often contain inaccuracies and are not polished. It is better to have them than no information at all on the topics they cover. Such articles lead to criticism from elitists. However, information is for use, not to impress. I would concern myself with maximizing the amount of information Wikipedia contains, and not with limiting it. Censorship also implies that the self-appointed censors know best, when their knowledge is not proven. Let people fight it out one-on-one when there is disagreement. The intellectually self-confident should win, and those less confident should lose.

Thank you pointing out the error in the Lorentz factor. I do not maintain the article does not contain minor errors like misspellings or the one you pointed out. I try to avoid them, but they happen. Your pointing out this error suggests that that you do not know of any more serious errors—at least, ones that you can articulate. The article theory may be wrong, but I have reason to be dubious that you know that it is wrong. I do agree that it needs better referencing.

My guess is that you do not intuitively grasp the general principle of relativity. If you are in a closed box or elevator and you are accelerating, Einstein is saying that there is no way to tell whether the acceleration is due to inertial movement or to gravitation. You cannot do an experiment inside the elevator that will prove the type of acceleration. This principle is apparently my bad premise.

The article follows from the general principle. This principle seems to be accepted, so that whatever follows from it must be accepted with it. More broadly, the theory is similar to that of Copernicus. Available evidence was sufficient to prove it superior to the accepted theory of Ptolemy, even though it did not lead to exact predictions. I listed applications to the article theory that are sufficient to prove it superior to known theories. Such applications do not prove it in a mathematical sense. It is not known if the sun is big enough or will ever become dense enough to split into two binaries. Calculations would depend on observation and correct assessment of the mass and densities of nearby binary and solitary stars, taking into account their gravitation potential relative to other stars.

The article theory could be disproven by applying the equations of special relativity to gravitational phenomena. However, the article does not say the theory is true. All it says is that it is consistent with the general principle, as that is the article title (not symmetric relativity). If this general principle is a bad premise, then presumably other Wikipedia articles that reference this principle need editing.

I am a saved Christian, and am probably the leading editor of the Wikipedia Salvation article. I understood that you were an atheist and did not ostensibly believe in hell. I once read the Satanist Bible and noted that most Satanists did not believe is Satan. There are many atheist intellectuals. I suppose not having a religion, atheists make intellectualism their religion.

I hold my own self-interest as my ruling principle. I would never hold non serviam. Sometimes service is in my self-interest. I accept salvation because I cannot save myself. That gift puts me in debt, and implies service. What is Jesus supposed to do, not act in self-interest?

I am quite happy to act as a complete fool, if by acting so, I further my self-interest. I do not care what other people think. Non serviam seems to mean that you serve your self rather than God. However, in practice, having a big ego makes you a slave to other people's opinions. It forces you to act like the main character in the British TV show, Keeping Up Appearances. Even though you are hoping for eternal unconsciousness, don't you think it insane that you are virtually worshipping your own damnation? Clearly you have strayed from the path of self-interest.

You seem to forget that you are the one who started a fight with me. I am responding to you. You are technically taking up my time, not vice versa. I do find you interesting because you provide me feedback of social opinion I am not aware of. In addition, you make me think of things like cultural imperialism and the fact that technically I am not maintaining that the relativity article is true—only that it is consistent with the general principle. --Danras 02:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salvation

Thanks. Lima 04:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

See WP:CIV and WP:NOR. Use salvation discussion. (Simonapro 16:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Please help

Sorry to bother you, but as an Inclusionist wikipedia things are getting desperate and I need to appeal to your for help. We are facing a situation where a deletionist admin is free to declare inclusionist arguments "absurd" and ignore them at will. If you don't agree with this situation, please share your opinion here. Kappa 02:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philly meetup

Hi, Danras! There will be a Wikipedia Meetup in Philadelphia on 4 November. If you're interested in coming, RSVP by editing Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 2 to reflect the likelihood of your being able to attend. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Hopefully, we'll all see you (and each other) on the 4th! --CComMack (t•c) 17:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Hope to see you there! --evrik 18:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invite

You are invited to participate in WikiProject Philadelphia, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about Philadelphia. We are currently discussing prospects for the project. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

--evrik 18:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to black hole

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. While the Wikipedia community appreciates your obvious efforts to increase the amount of information on the site, we'd like to point out our policy against original research and for citing sources for the information you provide. This increases the reputation of Wikipedia as a whole and aids in checking the factuality of that article.

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Byrgenwulf 07:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rfc

As part of the dispute resolution process, I've started an rfc page regarding your repetitive edits on the black hole page. It won't be official unless someone else signs it. Pervect 07:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Danras is "official" now -- I encourage you to comment in response to others' criticisms. I am an outsider and neutral on the subject of classical physics vs. general relativity as they relate to black holes. I have left a more Wikipedia-related question on the RFC's talk page you may want to look at. --A. B. 20:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delaware County, Pennsylvania and Robert Rivera

Danras- yes, I'm a lawyer, but my practice is transactional. I don't have a dog in the fight regarding Robert Rivera's case at all-- for all I know, the poor guy was wrongly convicted. But that's beside the point: (1) I seriously doubt that the controversy over Mr. Rivera's conviction (however significant the event might be to him) is notable enough to warrant inclusion in the history section of the Delaware County, Pennsylvania page. The Upper Chichester Township, Pennsylvania page, maybe-- but not at the county level. Hell, even the Dave Schultz/John E. DuPont murder case isn't mentioned on the county article, and that was international news. Nor is the Aimee Willard murder, which got far more media attention. The Robert Rivera story has only a couple of hundred google hits, many of which are to your Wikipedia article. (2) The Robert Rivera article is strongly slanted in favor of a particular point of view. Take a look at some of the articles linked to Miscarriage of justice for examples of articles discussing particular controversial convictions. Spikebrennan 14:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {unref} tag

Hi, you recently removed the {unref} tag from Barry Lee Fairchild‎ (why can't I get that to link properly?) and your edit summary indicated that the external links were references. I'm not an expert in the fine details of the matter, but if the links are actually references then shouldn't they be in the form of in-line citations? My understanding is that "External Links" are simply to provide additional info on the topic, not to serve as actual references. I'm certainly not criticizing the article itself, it contains some useful and important information. I think it's just a minor technicality to be corrected. I'll be watching your Talkpage, so you can respond here. Thanks for your time :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right. I looked at the article and it seemed that most if not all of the article content is contained in the first external link. That link should at least be listed in a Reference section. I will check it out and see if in-line citations seem appropriate. I am going on a two-day trip and will perform the work when I return. --Danras 14:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Danras. Sounds like a good plan; have a nice trip :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 15:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boorne Brothers article

A fake Colvin is not as far-fetched as it may seem. I read several articles related to this issue a while back but I'm having trouble locating them. Basically, Jesse admitted to a false Colvin being hired and taking advantage of the fact that Colvin had a reputation for acting really confused all the time. Remember, he returned seven years after he disappeared so it would not be so hard to use an imposter to take his place. I'll try and find my sources again to prove my point. There are many parallels between this event and Martin Guerre so it is entirely plausible. I'll get back to you when I have evidence.

[edit] Looking for input

Hello, you recently participated in this AfD. There is a discussion going on at the article's talk page about the title of the article, so I am notifying everyone who voted or commented on the AfD in case you wanted to participate in the discussion. Thanks! Tufflaw 00:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Disputed convictions in the United States

An editor has nominated Disputed convictions in the United States, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disputed convictions in the United States and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 18:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tyrone Noling

Tyrone Noling has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this article might not be appropriate for Wikipedia without the addition of reliable sources. Please review Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for the relevant guidelines. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so, attributing the information in the article to third-party sources.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia Pennsylvania

Hello there!

I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:

Thanks and I hope you join up! Cbrown1023 talk 02:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Choctaw Three going through possible deletion

As the lead editor of the article, I figured I would let you know.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choctaw Three. -- Guroadrunner 09:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zeke Goldblum

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Zeke Goldblum, by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Zeke Goldblum fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

AfD, closed as hoax, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeke Goldblum


To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Zeke Goldblum, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economic progress

I am afraid I have nominated the article for deletion as an original research/POV essay. Feel free to comment at its deletion discussion/vote page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic progress. Regards, Mike Rosoft 08:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Good riddance. I nominate the economic progress article as "Worst wikipedia article ever written" award. - Private Freedom 05:39, 23 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Private Freedom (talk • contribs)

[edit] WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Danras! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Anthony Graves

I have nominated Anthony Graves, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Graves. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delete sandbox page

Hey, now that you seem to have transwiki'd it to the mainspace, do you think you could put a {{speedy}} on User talk:Danras/Temp Sandbox? Or at least blank the contents now that you're done with it? Thanks. Ford MF (talk) 08:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis Dechaine

Just to let you know that a user keeps censoring the name of the murder victim from this article you created. I have already reverted it twice but the user is still at it. John celona (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

He just [[1]] had the nerve to vandalize your comments on the talk page. You may want to file an ANI-this should be a blockable offense. John celona (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Disputed convictions leading to execution

Category:Disputed convictions leading to execution, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)