User talk:Friendly Neighbour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting -- ~~~~ at the end.
 I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented:

  • If I post on your talk page, I will notice any replies posted there.
  • Unless you request otherwise, I will reply here to comments made here.
Start a new topic at the page bottom.


Archive
Archives
March 2006 - September 2006






Contents

[edit] Archiving...

I wonder if you could be so kind as to remove some of the old discussions from this page to an archive? Some of the discussions appear to be causing someone a bit of upset (nothing major, but just a bit of upset), and the person in question has really turned over a new leaf. A bit of forgiveness and kindness is in order, I think. This is not an order or command, just a kind request. If this seems cryptic, it is because I am trying not to cause more problems for this person. But if you look at the sections above, I think you will know what I mean. If not, please email me?--Jimbo Wales 14:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, no problem with that. Friendly Neighbour 19:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heim again ...

Left this after reverting your deletion on B. heim page:

restoring comment of von Ludwiger, who is not unknown and has written a book on Heim which was reccomended as non-fiction book of the month by e.g. [1]

It was also given a similar distinction by one of the main German newspapers, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung [2] --hughey 18:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I still think that citing praises for a physicist from a known UFO researcher does Burkhard Heim no favor, but if you think that he deserves them then let them stay. --Friendly Neighbour 07:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Von Ludwiger was a physicist and pioneer in the German Space industry long before his UFO interests started. Note that the Suddeutsche Zeitung was big enough to judge the man by his work on Heim's thought in that book of his. Recall that several great physicists are very active in UFO research - Peter Sturrock or Bernard Haisch are cases in point. --hughey 09:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Bernard Haisch, the author of The God Theory... What can I say? If von Ludwiger is on the same level of fame, I would prefer not to be praised by him. But that's of course my private opinion. --Friendly Neighbour 16:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assitance

Please help with User:Space Cadet.. :( he seems to be insulting me and wont let me add neutrality back to articles he reverted back to his versions which had been changed to his own good. What shall we do with these by adding own his opinions? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Space_Cadet

  1. 21:08, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wielki Krzek (RV V) (top)
  2. 21:07, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) History of Gdańsk (very neutral indeed) (top)
  3. 21:06, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Dantzig (RVV) (top)
  4. 21:04, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Drużno (don't correct Polish language if you don't know it) (top)
  5. 21:02, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) List of islands of Poland (top)
  6. 21:01, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Oksywie culture (revert revisionism) (top)
  7. 21:01, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Polans (western) (rv revisionism) (top)
  8. 20:42, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Oder-Neisse line (rv revisionism) (top)
  9. 20:41, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Pomerania (rv v by anon) (top)
  10. 20:40, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Szczecin (top)
  11. 20:38, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Hermann Friedrich Waesemann (double naming) (top)
  12. 20:38, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Danzig thaler (Gdańsk now AND then) (top)
  13. 20:37, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Mundart des Weichselmündungsgebietes (rv revisionism) (top)
  14. 20:36, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Ewald Christian von Kleist (rv revisionism) (top)
  15. 20:36, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Daniel Chodowiecki (Gdańsk now AND then + watch the spelling, don't just blindly revert like an idiot) (top)
  16. 20:35, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Biserica Neagră (Gdańsk now AND then) (top)
  17. 20:35, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Hasso von Boehmer (Gdańsk now AND then) (top)
  18. 20:34, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Gottlieb Hufeland (rv lies) (top)
  19. 20:34, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Klaas Reimer (Gdańsk now AND then) (top)
  20. 20:33, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Philipp Clüver (country important and neutral) (top)
  21. 20:32, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) David Olère (Gdańsk now AND then) (top)
  22. 20:32, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Danzig gulden (rv revisionism) (top)
  23. 20:31, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Andreas Schlüter (NPOV) (top)
  24. 20:31, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Henryk Leon Strasburger (it was ALWAYS Gdańsk, not just now) (top)
  25. 20:30, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Albrecht Giese (rv v) (top)
  26. 20:29, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Tiedemann Giese (sorry but yours is nationalistic) (top)
  27. 20:28, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) The Last Judgment (Memling) (country important and completely neutral) (top)
  28. 20:27, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Paúel Benecke (top)
  29. 20:26, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Jacob Theodor Klein (You wish) (top)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.195.112.109 (talk • contribs)
Do you realize that such a blitzkrieg as the edit history of a new account (you) must raise some eyebrows. Especially as even a cursory review of your edits shows many spelling and factual errors. I think you should work more slowly and look at articles histories and Talk page discussion before you edit. You clearly did nothing like this so far today. Otherwise you would not be able to change so many articles in such a short time. Please try to explain your edits on the Talk pages of articles and in the edit comments (in a more informative way than claiming everything you don't like is vandalism). Thank you. --Friendly Neighbour 21:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oksywie culture

Original article comprise of "Oxhoft Culture" but Space cadets removal set bad fighting in motion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.195.112.109 (talk • contribs)

You wrote in your edit summary "reverted vandalism commited by many users and anons". Do you realize that you've simply admitted to go against the consensus? Please read WP:OWN. --Friendly Neighbour 21:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I added back Oxhöft culture but your other changes are not necessary. --Friendly Neighbour 21:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Galactic Coordinates

Thank you for the comment. That saves me from making a big mistake (though now I have a big problem instead). I found the 'Galactic coordinate system' to be a bit confusing - thus my wonky viewpoint. I guess this is what happens when an InfoSys masters student tries to do a dissertation using Astronomic/Astrobiological data... ^.^ --MatthewKarlsen 17:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncilivness

Spacecadet alienete me and insult me further.. Why does people allow this uncivilness?

  1. 20:53, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Albrecht Giese (rv lies) (top)
  2. 20:52, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Tiedemann Giese (rv lies) (top)
  3. 20:52, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Oder River (Bydgoszcz in German is Bromberg, check your sources, ignorant.) (top)
  4. 20:50, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Oder-Neisse line (rv v)
  5. 19:31, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Oder River (this is not a history article)

I add relevant information to those, and even additions to Albrecht Giese (rv lies) and Tiedemann Giese (rv lies) are in other articles. But spoacecadet say lieing? Why do people let this get passed without objection? He scares away many wikipiediers?172.191.156.115

A few points:
  1. Could you set up a proper (named) account. How are people to know that you are the same user the communicated with yesterday when you constantly change the IP numbers?
  2. I try not to mix into edit conflicts where I do not know who is right. I could research all the articles you listed but I do not have time for that. Sorry.
  3. There are proper ways to use in your situation. You can report the users on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If they broke the three-revert rule you can file a report on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. You could even ask for WP:Arbitration. More options are listed on Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. However, any report has lower chances of success when you are a new IP number every day (see point one).
I hope that helps. Cheerio. --Friendly Neighbour 21:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You may or may not be aware that the user writing just above this comment has sent exactly the same message to me; I know not to how many others. I have advised him, after an abortive attempt to get him to talk to his principal opponent, to take his problem to WP:AN/I. I also suggested that s/he make an account, which of course accords with the comment which you have made to him. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. And you probably noticed that I'm sure 172.195.112.109 and 172.191.156.115 are the same person with a different IP number every day. The continuation of reverts shows that beyond any doubt. And if, so, he does a good job of avoiding breaking WP:3RR (even counting together both accounts). So he looks like an experienced Wikipedian who plays a complete novice to make the admins' hearts softer. I told you yesterday that what he does is identical to sneaky vandalism. And the disruption is gargantuan. What should we do? --Friendly Neighbour 22:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My talk page

I just yesterday changed the colour of my signature, and carelessly typed "Usertalk" rather than "User talk". Thank you for your vigilance. It is corrected now.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome :-) --Friendly Neighbour 21:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excuse me?

What do you want now? I'm pretty confused. Ziniticus 20:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

To welcome your decision of listening to our advice and setting up a named account. --Friendly Neighbour 21:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your patience

...is commendable, and far exceeds my own (resp. this thread). The most frustrating thing is that he's absolutely convinced that he knows what he's doing. Raymond Arritt 21:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise. However, I have a related question. Are you teaching (no matter whether on academic or lower level)? At present I am examining my students. Some are confused in ways I would not think possible. I try to get some things straight while examining them believing it is my last chance to actually teach them something. Such experience teaches a lot of patience towards ignorance. Thanks again, --Friendly Neighbour 05:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, your experience sounds quite familiar! Please email if you would like to discuss further. Raymond Arritt 13:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice work on Redfield Ratio

Hi Friendly Neighbour! I just wanted to stop by and say thank you for the improvements you made to Redfield ratio. This is a new concept I just came across in reading about ocean chemistry and climate. I saw it was a notable concept but I didn't have the background to put it into clear yet simple terms, as you were able to do. A good neighbour indeed. Birdbrainscan 18:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Although I have the feeling that you attribute to me also the work of other editors. --Friendly Neighbour 19:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Sun

The sun is not travelling through Local Fluff of the Local Bubble so stop saying that —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.161.6 (talk) 19:33:06, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. See this paper for example: Priscilla C. Frisch, 1997, "The Local Bubble, Local Fluff, and Heliosphere", arXiv:astro-ph/9710141. By the way you've just broke WP:3RR. --Friendly Neighbour 19:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what do you think?

Many-worlds_interpretation#Waveform_Collapse_Explained_by_Continuous_Branching Always a lot of hype in that magazine Godspeed John Glenn! Will 00:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What should I say. You did a good job writing the paragraph. However, I have strong misgivings about the multiverse explanations of either the quantum probabilities or the anthropic principle. It's more philosophy than physics in the meaning of not being falsifiable. Popper would not agree it's science and here I would agree with him (though I have some separate views on Popper's ideas about falsifiability, criterion of demarcation and induction). In a nutshell the idea of waveform collapse explanation by continuous branching is not empirically testable, is it? --Friendly Neighbour 13:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The long term editors of that article changed the name of the paragraph to "Probalistic Ex..." Deutsch says a reversible intelligent quantum computer would be able to falsify the theory. The different angle on the multiverse now is quantum computing. Where is the computing taking place? Also there are some unique insights such as the photon interference in the single slit. Self interfence in parallel universes. Our buddy Hdeasy does not like the multiverse either. Thanks for looking at it. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 13:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)