User talk:Sholto Maud

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Sholto Maud, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Quentin Pierce 03:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Javascript / Flash Docs

I don't believe there is a direct way to place javascript/flash documents onto Wikipedia, but you can always link one of the links in your user page to whatever place if it is on the web, or you could just copy the code and paste it onto a separate user subpage. AndyZ 22:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emergy, etc

You posted your comment on my talk page, instead of User:24.159.243.21, the one with the vendetta against you. I was able to convince him that these were real things. My doctoral advisor was a student of Odum's - I'm the last person who would be critical of this stuff. Guettarda 02:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Truth is, I am not an ecosystem ecologist, not of Odum's school in that sense at all. I will keep an eye on the articles, but you need to vote Keep on the AfDs. Guettarda 03:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Style notes

Just a note on style with some of your edits. There's no need for all the excessive bold and italics. If you put something in <nohtml></nohtml> it should be an actual quote and have an attribution. If it's not a quote, don't use the blockquote tag. For most quotes you should just use "quotation marks." Take a look at some of my edits on Principles of energetics for an idea on how to do this. A lot of those quotes there either need attributions (or they are not quotes at all, it was hard to tell.) Thanks. Peyna 04:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see my recent post at Talk:Principles_of_energetics. Thanks. Peyna 04:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopaedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Principles of energetics, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes. Ok just getting used to the rules!!! Sholto Maud 21:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Who's Odum? and AFD nominations

I've been away all day and just saw your note. I didn't nominate any of your articles for deletion. It was 24.159.243.211. Thanks.

[edit] Maximum power, maximum empower

All I'm looking for in these articles is an explanation of the ecological concepts they refer to, rather than merely a statement that the ecological concepts exist and Odum developed them. You are correct that without such explanation they are not worth much, but the answer to that is fixing them, not deleting them. The material I removed was not about ecology at all; it was about electronics and thermodynamics. Gazpacho 21:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Principles of energetics

Hi, Sholto, I happen to know enough about ecology to know something about Odum's contribs to that subject, but I also know quite a bit about physics and math, and I am with Linas and others on this: the present article is sadly deficient:

  • doesn't clarify whether you are
    • summarizing Odum's writings
    • summarizing writings by other ecologists commenting on his early work,
    • making your own proposals
  • lacks any real content.

It's nice that you added some citations, but citations are only the beginning: a good encyclopedia article fairly and accurately summarizes whats in the research literature, including a fair and accurate description of any controversies.

It would be helpful if you added to your user page more information regarding your own background in ecology and thermodynamics.---CH 03:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:136.186.1.118

Why is this user making edits to your user page here and are they valid? I would have reverted them but they don't really look like the work of a vandal.CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thought that's what it was but just wanted to be sure. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Received Giannantoni's book

Sholto, that's for the tip on the book. It looks interesting so far; especially about the part on speculations of fifth and sixth laws of thermodynamics - that made me laugh! I'll let you know when I get up towards page 50-100. Later:--Wavesmikey 12:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Human Thermodynamics

Oh hey re: human thermodynamics you might be interested to follow up some of the info at including the CD book http://www.actionlove.com/ if your server will allow you to view it. Sholto Maud 03:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sholto, thanks for the input; however, regarding the "thermodynamic sex" project, that is not exactly the idea. Rather, for example, when asked, people will quickly recall their "hottest" ever day of sex. Technically, heat defines as energy in transit. The question remains: what specific combination of "energy in transit" dynamics operated or functioned during the 20 years prior to this eventful day such to have instilled this irreversible path towards spontaneous atomic exchange? The actual act of sex is rather trivial. It is the elusive multi-year thermodynamically-defined chemical reaction mechanism occuring between two symbiotic reacting molecules that bends the mind to curiosity.
See the following links for further ideas:
  1. Molecular Evolution Table
  2. Human Chemical Reaction
Let me know what you think of these links. Later:--Wavesmikey 04:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sholto, where is the "exact" link for this hypothesis: a couple involved in a sexual act form a bioelectric circuit, which is fundamental to understanding the energy and heat dynamics of the coupling? The page you referred me to contains over 100 links, mostly being sexual dysfunction topics. This hypothesis, however, is very close to reality. Always remember though, human life is nothing more then the process of: "molecules reacting over substrate". An electric circuit implies the flow of charged particles through a conducting circuit due to the presence of a potential difference [Clark’s Essential Dictionary of Science (2004)]. This definition applies in the human case, with adjustments; see:

Curiously, last week I just started reading Csikszentmihalyi’s (1990) Flow – the Psychology of Optimal Experience; here Csikszentmihalyi finds correlation between his experiences of “flow”, i.e. the state of concentration so focused that it amounts to absolute absorption in an activity, during rock-climbing to analogous human life processes. Interestingly, over the course of 30 years he studies highly accomplished people as artists, athletes, musicians, chess masters, and surgeons using a technique called the Experience Sampling Method, which involves asking people to where an electronic pager and to write down how they feel, what they were doing, and what they were thinking about when randomly paged throughout the week. The term “flow” was coined during Csikszentmihalyi’s 1975 interviews where several people described their “flow” experiences using the metaphor of a current carrying them along. Based on these sorts of reports, I am presently theorizing over how this process actually works in reality via actual nuclei, atoms, molecules, and photonic mechanisms. Thus, if you have an exact link similar this sort of discussion then please refer me to it. Thanks:--Wavesmikey 10:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thermodynamic evolution

Can you please take a look at Thermodynamic evolution? It sounds like another one of those wacky/pseudoscience theories, but I can no longer tell. linas 17:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas

Hi Sholto, enjoy your vacation. I think I might unplug for a week or two pretty soon myself. I have been working through some more of the Tropical agriculture stuff today, so may not get back to permaculture until after xmas. Hey, thanks for the xmas well wishing. Enjoy your Christmas as well:) Take care, Brimba 04:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Zeroth Law.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Zeroth Law.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Romeo Bravo 07:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Zeroth-SecondLaw.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Zeroth-SecondLaw.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Romeo Bravo 07:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop and erase your previous vandalism. There are better ways.

I hope you can tell from my recent work on exergy that I am interested in improving the quality of some of the articles in fields that also interest you. However, when I saw by accident using google that you recently added requests to merge energy with exergy, with emergy and with energy quality, I began to have second thoughts. Do you seriously believe that an encyclopedia should contain one entry that covers both energy and emergy, and that this entry should be under emergy? I think you are doing this for the sake of advocacy, but it is only vandalism. You are wasting the time of people who read these requests on their way to the articles themsleves and also the time of the people who eventually cared enough to remove the silly requests. I noticed that after some people removed the requests, you simply put them back up. Please stop now and also go back and erase similar things you might have done elsewhere like multiple requests to merge lots of things with maximum power. It looks like you're pretty new to Wikipedia, so maybe nobody pointed these kinds of things out before. Everything you do here leaves a record.

After I am done with the major rewrite of exergy (this will probably take days or a week or two), I'll remove the cleanup tag that has been there since February, 2005, and, if you like what you see then, you can nominate the article for featured article status. And of course if you don't like what you see, you can change the article. Other options at that point (after the rewrite is done) will be to submit the article for peer review and/or mention it as a good, important article on talk pages where physicists and engineers hang out. The result will be that exergy and all the concepts related to it will receive a huge amount of attention from people who will really learn about it, help the other articles along, and maybe utilize their new knowledge in the real world. I hope that's what you want to happen. Flying Jazz 14:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Leibniz_machine.jpg

Warning sign
This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Leibniz_machine.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Nick123 (t/c) 16:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Nicolai Hartmann

Hi, I see that you know a lot about philosophy. If possible, I need your help in Systems Theory discussion. Maybe we can finally get Nicolai Hartmann the recognition he deserves.

Regards

Dr. Gabriel Gojon 06:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Amazing contribution, thank you! I really apreciate it.

Dr. Gabriel Gojon 16:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] article you may find useful

Sholto,

I noticed that you have been trying to clarify the concept of "emergy". I have been trying to reconcile "entropy", and it is quite a deep issue. I have written a paper that might help in rigourously grounding "energy" and "entropy" in economics (see a rought draft at www.math.uci.edu/~mcampbel). When I get a chance, I will strip out a lot of the technical "rigor-mortis" and publish a version with maximum focus on economic implications.

You may find it interesting and/or useful. Several notable economists and physicists have found it interesting thus far. I certainly agree with some of your posts, that more rigourous mathematical definitions and theorems should be developed for the "emergy" ideas if it is to ever be accepted by physicists. The problem in "econophysics" is the reverse: physicists must bring in and collaborate with economists in order for econophysics to be of consequence in the economic realm.

-Mike


[edit] Image Tagging Image:ESL of Summary.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:ESL of Summary.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 19:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unitas multiplex: unity in diversity

Sholto, could you explain this concept you introduced on Bahá'í Faith and language policy? It isn't wikilinked to another article nor can I find "Unitas multiplex" on a search. This seems to be jargon of some sort and isn't shared by the Bahá'ís so it seems like it'll need some explaination and possible justification. Thanks. MARussellPESE 13:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


Please click here to leave me a new message.


[edit] Why

<html> <head> <script type="text/javascript"> function changeColor(color) { myForm.elements[0].style.background=color } </script> </head> <body>

This example demonstrates how to change the background color of an option list.

Mouse over the three colored table cells, and the option list will change color:

<form name="myForm"> <select> <option>Mouse over the colored table cells</option> <option>Mouse over the colored table cells</option> <option>Mouse over the colored table cells</option> <option>Mouse over the colored table cells</option> </select> </form>

</body> </html>

[edit] Notes

Novel information does not necesiarially equate to Original Research.

Reliable sources can be given a novel connection by placing them in a new organisation. New inferences can be made.

Novel information means…

Reliable source doe not necessarily equate to Standard Text. Standard Text which gives the “universally accepted paradigm”

A reliable source can be a non-standard text.

Novel information can induce an epistemological paradigm shift in the majority POV and evaluation of standardness. “epistemological paradigm shift was called a scientific revolution”. On this interpretation Wikipedia can qualify as a technology for scientific revolution.


"his way I see the outline of the landscape, and learn some interesting details mostly undisputed, and see some connections, and see what the important theories and debates are. Wikipedia tries to be careful in presenting different points of view; it is helped in this as so many people can contribute. If at the same time I can run into singular original views unexpectedly, this will reduce the value of the wikipedia as an overview of the world and ideas at large.

it cannot present the new ideas of a single individual,"

Martijn faassen Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research_(archive_1), 22:06, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


"Where and when does a research topic stop being novel research of a few proposers and start being the kind of received wisdom Jimbo is talking about?

  1. Many researchers beyond the original proponents apply the ideas;
  2. Several discussions on mailing lists;
  3. Several articles in field are widely cited.

the last three criteria are quantitative, and I am not sure what kinds of numbers to attach to them. Somewhat well-defined rules of thumb would be valuable, since the acceptability of quite a lot of material turns on them.

I'll suggest that we should be seeing at least 7 citations apart from the core propoents, at least 12 articles principally devoted to the topic, and twenty or so general comments on mailing lists."

Charles Stewart Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research_(archive_1)#Where_to_draw_the_line.3F, 00:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC).


"once a piece of research has passed the test of peer review, it is considered established knowledge, and so fair game for Wikipedia to document. This gels with the first paragraph of this article:

   Wikipedia is not a primary source. Specific factual content is not the question. Wikipedia is a secondary source (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources) or tertiary source (one that generalizes existing research or secondary sources of a specific subject under consideration). A Wikipedia entry is a report, not an essay. Please cite sources. "

Charles Stewart 03:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


[edit] A paradox in Wikipedia rules

From my early experiences of Wikipedia contribution I felt that there seemed to be a paradox in the rules. With the help of User:Bduke, it appears that the paradox can be resolved if the concept of "novel information" is uncoupled from the concept of "original research". Although it may be counterintuitive, this seems to mean that Wikipedia can be a source of novelty without being a source of originality.

You can find an archive of the discussion below.

I have to say that this misrepresents my view. Read the archive and make up your own mind. --Bduke 07:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The above statement was not indended to misrepresent User:Bduke view. In fact as far as I can tell, it does not represent User:Bduke's views at all. The resolution to the paradox was my own. I arrived at this resolution through a helpful discussion with User:Bduke. It is unfortunate that User:Bduke feels I have misrepresented their view. Perhaps I can conclude that this means the topic needs further discussion? Having said this, however, I do believe that the above resolution is a necessary outcome of the various arguments and replies given by User:Bduke. Nevertheless User:Bduke has never actually stated such a view. Sholto Maud 02:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paradox in Wiki rules

My point of view on OR, NPOV, Verifiability and WP:SPOV, has been informed by my experience of one of my first contributions, in which I arrived at something of a paradox at the heart of Wikipedia rules:
I contributed to the calculus ratiocinator article. I noticed that this article advocated a single point of view about the "calculus ratiocinator". I was aware of the fact that Norbert Weiner advocated a different point of view, and that this different point of view was published in Annals of the N.Y. Acad. Sci., which I assume qualifies as a "reputable source". Now, "Wikipedia uses the neutral point-of-view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view". This means, "representing views fairly and without bias". (I'm putting these in quotation marks with links to pages so that you may verify. Assuming that Wikipedia is a reliable source on these matters ofcourse! :)) In accordance with this "general principle/policy" ("Wikipedia doesn't have firm rules besides the five general principles"), I contributed Weiner's point of view to the article.

===Paradox:=== there is no reliable source which has ever published and contrasted these two points of view together in the same place before. Therefore in making my contribution to Wikipedia, the calculus ratiocinator article becomes an instance of OR, and should be excluded. But then I know that without mention of Weiner's view, the original calculus ratiocinator article violates NPOV and should excluded. So I'm caught in the middle of contradicting motivations to both contribute and not contribute, or even exclude the original article.

I suggest that the Wikipedia goal to have a complete repository for all knowledge often has this problem at heart. The clarification or extension of one editor's point of view by another editor is original research with respects to original editor.

You are not supposed to try to resolve the two points of view. Just report both. Do not clarify or extend what one POV is saying. Stick to what the sources say, but in your own words. There is no real paradox. Of course you could write an article in a published journal that contrasts the two points of view together in the same place for the same time. Then you can mention the conclusion on Wikipedia citing your own article. --Bduke 03:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I could get around the problem by publishing a separate calculus ratiocinator page. But then it would need to be merged with the other page on the same topic. So the problem is with the "merge" function. Any "merge" has the capacity of producing novel knowledge, which is OR. So in these cases, one has to publish the contents of a Wikipedia page before one can publish a Wikipedia page. Sholto Maud 06:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I meant publish as in a paper in an academic journal, not another WP page. --Bduke 11:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I know. That how I took it. Sholto Maud 23:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Then the paragraph I responded to makes no sense. You talk about two Wikipedia pages and merging them.

Yes, I did.Sholto Maud 03:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That is nothing like what I suggested.

That's right. Sholto Maud 03:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggested that if you write a proper peer reviewed journal article, you then have an external source that can be cited.

That is correct. You did suggest this. Sholto Maud 03:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It would of course be better if someone else wrote the bit in the WP article citing your paper. --Bduke 00:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Ok. Seems fair. But it makes Wikipedia a little slow. The implication of what you are saying seems to be that each article itself needs to be published in its entirety externally in a peer reviewed journal before being posted to Wikipedia - so wiki simply a store of already peer-reviewed knowledge. In this case there would be no need for wikipedia peer review. Sholto Maud 03:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be deliberately misrepresenting everything I say. I did not say "each article itself needs to be published in its entirety externally in a peer reviewed journal before being posted to Wikipedia" and that was not the implication of what I write. I said what Wikipedia says. That is that everything in an article should be present in external sources and not be OR. If there was an external peer review journal article, you could say in the article (something like, if I recall the context) - "the two approaches have been compared and contrasted by Sloto Maud, who suggests that ...." and then cite your paper. That is not copying in a whole article which you can not do anyway because the journal has the copyright.

Do'nt misrepresent me again. I refuse to comment on the rubbish you posted last night because that totally misrepresented and misunderstood what I said. If you do it again, I will not reply to anything you write. That would be a pity because I do have an interest in the philosophy of science (mainly the relatively new philosophy of chemistry), and very few scientists do. --Bduke 04:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] apologies

User:Bduke. Thank you for your contributions. I believe that our dicussions have been fruitful, and I'm sorry if you feel that they have not been useful. Like you I feel it would be a pity for us not to continue the discussion. Like you I also have a strong interest in the new philosophy of chemistry, but find that I don't have enough time to read in the area.

  • I'm not sure what you are referring to in my writing as rubbish. I am not deliberately setting out to write rubbish.
  • I believe that I am writing from a sincere attempt at good faith. It is possible that I may be deluding myself, however I sincerely hope this is not the case, and I apologise if it is.
  • I do not mean to misrepresent your words.

However I do mean to re-present your words. It seems to me that it is a fine line between good faith representation and malicious misrepresentation. From my point of view, if I had set out to maliciously misrepresent your views I would have written, "The implication of what you are saying is X...". Or even simply, "You are saying X".

What I wrote was, "The implication of what you are saying seems to be X...". I use the word "seems" as a qualifier. I am not claiming that you are saying X. It is more tentative than that. It is like saying "suggets", "might", etc. I believe that this is one of the things that philosophers do in conversation with each other. It is a way of trying to lead each other's reasoning in a certain direction. Sholto Maud 23:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sure you did not mean to misrepresent me, but you certainly did. The statement "The implication of what you are saying" seems to be "each article itself needs to be published in its entirety externally in a peer reviewed journal before being posted to Wikipedia" would be considered by any reasonable person to be false. I said nothing like that and it is not possible, reasonably, to presume, in any way, that I did, even tentatively. You misrepresented me. Never do it again. --Bduke 00:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review

If you (User:Bduke or other readers) have the interest to go over this one more time...

I agree that you (User:Bduke) and "Wikipedia" (whoever that is) are saying "...that everything in an article should be present in external sources and not be OR." No problem there.

Now let's go back to the calculus ratiocinator example to see if I can illustrate my point if not lets leave it for some other time.

In sum: 1. Prior to my contribution the "calculus ratiocinator" advocated a single view, point of view one (POV1)
2. In a peer-reviewed reliable source there is another point of view, that of Norbert Weiner (POV2).
3. Now, "Wikipedia NPOV strives for articles that advocate no single point of view."
Conclusion:
4. One is obliged to contribute POV2 to calculus ratiocinator article. As you say, "Just report both." In doing so the article now contains POV1 & POV2.

Notice that POV2 is a reliable source and peer reviewed so qualifies under all Wikipedia rules. That is to say that there is no rule stipulating any basis for the exclusion of POV2 content from Wikipedia.

However.
5. Prior to the contribution of POV2, there was no peer-reviewed reliable source that contained both POV1 & POV2 in the same place.
6. Thus the article is now novel - the collaborative process of putting POV1 & POV2 in the same place has produced a text of a kind not seen before.

Q: At what point does the production of a novel text, a text of a kind not seen before, that is, a new combination of sentences and words, become "original", and thus "original research"?

If it actually gives new original ideas. Just putting them together does not do this. --Bduke 00:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

7. If the collaborative process of putting POV1 & POV2 in the same place to produce a text of a kind not seen before is original, then
8. This novelty qualifies the article as original research (OR).

Solution
To get around this situation you (User:Bduke) have suggested,

I am only trying to suggest a way around you wanting to add something actually original such as a proper comparision and contrast of the two approaches. --Bduke 00:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"write a proper peer reviewed journal article, you then have an external source that can be cited."

If I am right (which I may not be) I assume your suggestion means that I should write a proper peer reviewed journal article on the calculus ratiocinator containing both POV1 & POV2. The Wiki-calculus ratiocinator article could then cite such an article so that the Wiki-calculus ratiocinator article can legitimately contain both POV1 & POV2 and so not qualify as OR.

No, you are not right. I am suggesting that what is needed is a peer reviewed academic paper that covers the original contribution i.e. the comparing and contrasting of the two appraoches, not a paper that just describes both which of course would not be accepted by the journal. It is perfectly possible, as I have been repeatedly saying, for the article to contain POV1 and POV2, if they are descibed in a NPOV way, without it being OR. --Bduke 00:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask, by containing both POV1 & POV2, does this mean that the Wiki-calculus ratiocinator article is illegitimate? And should I therefore delete the references to Norbert Weiner's view and implications thereof (or would this be vandalism)? Sholto Maud 00:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you are stretching the wikipedia guidelines further than you should. To put two different points of view, each described as neutrally as you can in the same article, even though that has never been done before, is not original research. If you go on, for example, and say that really they are saying the same thing when nobody else has noticed that and thought they were different, then you are doing original research. So, you should not add that to the article, until such a time as that statement is available from a good source external to wikipedia. So, I sugggest that point 6 is false. the article is not novel just becasue they are both contained in the same place (point 5). There has to be some original actual connection between them and proximity in one place is not a connection. --Bduke 00:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The answer to you question above my para above is "No", unless you did add OR in a way similar to as descibed by me above. --Bduke 00:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

On another matter, I am afraid the scientists on SPR have done what they normally do and shifted the philosophical issues off to one side, in this case to the new sub-page. I suspect you will get very few contributions, so let me suggest a way to get some. I feel that there will never be a successfull bot at article reviewing, but I would welcome you arguing on that sub-page how a bot might work and would it could achieve. --Bduke 00:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Co-editing confusing :)

Thank you again for your persistance and comments and corrections. It seems our desire to give each other up to date thoughts means we are overlapping making the thread a little jumbled.

I'm not sure how much longer you can stand this but I feel I'm almost done. I find it interesting that you see point 6 (above) as a false move, and that the calculus ratiocinator article is legitimate. I tend to agree. :)

Nevertheless, in putting POV2 into the calculus ratiocinator article, I have Wikipublished a view that is novel to the majority of philosophers. I have done the same thing with some science articles, e.g. emergy, energy quality, and even the holly ground of thermodynamic laws. So for the majority of scientists and philosophers what I am contributing is OR, and tends to attract alot of resistance and OR nominations from wiki users. But it's all from verifiable peer reviewed apparently "reliable sources." It is almost as if there is a clash between reliable source and standard interpretations; i.e. a source can be reliable, but non-standard. It seems that people who only hold the standard POV tend to think of the non-standard POV as OR. Sholto Maud 01:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

If what you are adding is novel you have to be extra carefull to be NPOV. I do not want to go further. --Bduke 02:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

There has to be some original actual connection between them and proximity in one place is not a connection. --Bduke 00:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

A most interesting statement. Very interesting...but I'm a little lost. I don't want to misrepresent you. I only want to clarify.
  • Are you saying that, proximity in one place of POV1 & POV2 is not sufficient grounds for arguing that it is "original research"?
Yes, of course. There has to be OR for it to be OR. --Bduke 02:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What is the original actual connection referring to?

Sholto Maud 01:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Say two separate paragraphs explaining the two approaches in a NPOV. If they have never been together before as you say, you have to be carefull to not link them, but just having them there is not a link. Let me ask you something. Why, on earth, do you think putting them together in separate paragraphs could possibly be OR. I do not understand you. --Bduke 02:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

On another matter, I am afraid the scientists on SPR have done what they normally do and shifted the philosophical issues off to one side, in this case to the new sub-page. I suspect you will get very few contributions, so let me suggest a way to get some. I feel that there will never be a successfull bot at article reviewing, but I would welcome you arguing on that sub-page how a bot might work and would it could achieve. --Bduke 00:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you also for your comments immediately above. I've tried to form an argument on the SPRmethodology subpage (which I've put a link to on the main SPR page). Sholto Maud 01:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to look at sometime, but not now. I'm about to go out. --Bduke 02:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Shol.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Shol.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book reading update:

Sholto, to keep you up to date, I switched my user page to user:Sadi Carnot. I still haven't finished reading Giannantoni's book, but I did read Lotka's 1922 papers, and bought copies of Odum's Energy Basis For Man and Nature, and Lotka's Elements of Mathematical Biology. I also added some of your 4th Law proposals to the laws of thermodynamics page. Talk later:--Sadi Carnot 23:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sadi, thanks for your comments on my user page. I also think you've clarified things nicely on the laws of thermo page. Nice work. I find Odum-Lotka et al is fascinating, and very time absorbing, reading!! I have managed to accumulate many Odum etc. papers & publications which I'd like to scan onto the web. But I've used up all my $-exergy stores, so I'm out of gas. To forward this field further I think there needs to be a foundation established with a mission to clarify the statements and assumptions, to give practical means of demonstrating laws and principles, and to sponsor people to make these resources available on the web. Thanks again for your note - much appreciated. Sholto Maud 01:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I also forgot, yesterday I ordered a copy of Herbert Spencer's 1997 First Principles, I expect this to be an interesting read; also the day before that I read Cutler’s biophysical economics 1999 article. As to a foundation established with a mission to clarify the statements and assumptions as to the energetics of evolution, you are more than welcome to join our group, i.e. the IoHT. We are essentially just a group of researchers from around the world who have interest in trying to explain life and its processes from an energetic, thermodynamic, or chemical point of view, etc. We have virtually unlimited webspace so as to post up historical articles, theories, etc. online; and we have high key-word ranks on most search engines. There's no money or funding involved, however; we all contribute just as kind of a hobby, and for educational purposes, etc. Talk later: --Sadi Carnot 02:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Myron Tribus /H.T.Odum

"It would also be useful to read further comments on his application of H.T.Odum's maximum power principle."


I visit with Myron Tribus each week and will ask him about H.T.Odum on my next visit.

  • I would like to be a fly on the wall. It would also be very interesting to know Dr Tribus' views on H.T.Odum's application of the emergy nomenclature and use of the "transformity" ratio to quantify system energy quality. Is Odum's quality the same as Tribus-Demming quality? Sholto Maud 05:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


  • I am not familiar with Odun's concept of quality (my association with Myron is primarily through working with him on integrating and applying the concepts of Deming and Feuerstein).

I will try to see what I can find out on your additional questions. I am sure you would enjoy speaking with Myron. He is a great thinker and a great person who has always worked very hard to contribute and make a positive difference in other people's lives.

Thank you for editing the additional information I added to Myron’s page. That was my first attempt on Wikipedia and I was reluctant to change the content, so I added the new information below. You did a nice job integrating the material with your edit. Myron has reviewed his page and seems pleased with the information presented. His only edit was to add "Rational Descriptions, Decisions and Designs” to the reference section.


Sholto,

Myron's response:

Jim: I am not familiar with H.T.Odum's application of the emergy nomenclature and use of the "transformity" ratio to quantify system energy quality. Can your correspondent supply me with a reference (or better, to save my time the reference itself)? Myron


  • Jim: Thankyou for your efforts. I am still interested to know Dr Tribus's current thoughts about the H.T.Odum-Pinkerton rendering of the maximum power principle (and it's later "corrolary" the maximum "empower" principle). In particular does/did Dr Tribus consider that it applied in all systems? Is it formally analogous to resistance and impedance matching in electronic circuits?

I have put a copy of a review article of H.T.Odum's approach on esnips: I am not sure this article gives us all there is to get from H.T.Odum's approach but it is a reasonable start with references.

You and Myron should both be able to access it, if not please let me know. Kind regards Sholto Maud 06:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Post Script: I've also tried to lend my hand with the energy quality page. Sholto Maud 07:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have sent the paper to Myron. Thanks.

Leaders100 14:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pirsig's metaphysics of quality

Nice work! Did you handcraft that in a single session or did you slave on it for weeks on Notepad? --Jumbo 07:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Transferred it from 'metaphysics of quality' which is a more general article. Sholto Maud 07:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, just noticed that. Still, fascinating stuff. I find that there's a lot of incredibly good work on WP about philosophy. The sort of folk who reckon they know something about more general subjects - like Star Trek or their high school - shy away from articles they don't understand, leaving it to people who know what they are talking about to write some decent articles. Cheers! --Jumbo 07:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There seem to overlaps but there is no reputable literature examining the similarities, so we are a bit limited in what we can say here. Perhaps it might help for you to folllow your interst and publish a philosphical article looking at this area? Sholto Maud 13:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hiya sholto--just so you know, in the future you can move stuff by hitting that "move" tab at the top. that way the page history moves along with the page, which is important to keep . . . anyways. i'm just seeing the move now, i haven't been around much. hope all is well--heah 19:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] block-compression bug?

I noticed you left a message that the page history of Metaphysics of quality needs to be merged into Pirsig's metaphysics of quality and I completely agree. As far as I know it should be relatively easy to do the merge. So what is this "block-compression bug"? Has it been fixed? Should I go ahead and place {{db-histmerge}} at the top of the page? --Zoz (t) 18:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McCready to be blocked for 10-days on Pseudoscience articles

You might want to weigh in your thoughts here, if you haven't already. TheDoctorIsIn 18:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mccready is issued a 30 day community probation related to Pseudoscience articles

Hello

Based on the comments left on AN/I, I issued a 30 day topic ban to Mccready. (see Community probation log [1]) Discussion on talk pages is encouraged. Admins can enforce the ban if needed. Crosspost from AN:

Based on this discussion on AN/I [2] and the numerous comments on Mccready's talk page, Mccready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) is issued a 30 day ban from editing all articles related to the Pseudoscience. Mccready is encouraged to discuss his ideas on the talk pages of these articles. The the suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Mccready's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this article topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. FloNight 23:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion about the ban or request for enforcement can be made at AN/I or AN. FloNight 01:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to merge Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF article

I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamation of the merge begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks. Levine2112 00:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] D Scienceman

Hi, I just came across your article on David M. Scienceman. Do you happen to know what he does now, his job of affiliation? Thanks, AxelBoldt 07:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

--Hi Axel. As I understand it, Scienceman is now in his 80's, retired, and living away from public affairs in Australia. He seems only to reply to snail mail for correspondence, and prefers not to have his contact details made public. Some people who have had contact with him have suggested that he is looking to pass on the keys to the "emergy algebra| which he made his life's work. Regards, Sholto Maud 06:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Characteristica Universalis

Hi KSchutte. I noticed you gave the Characteristica Universalis article a B rating. Could you please explain the reasoning for this rating further on the discussion page of the article. Sholto Maud 03:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take no insult. I've been rating philosophy articles since the Philosophy Assessment came online about a month ago, and I haven't wanted to give anything higher than a B-class for a couple of reasons. 1) I don't really understand the point of the A-class, and 2) Both GA-class and FA-class involves a review and my mission at present is only to identify and tag philosophy articles, leaving nomination for a later date (or for others to do). If you think the article should be listed as a Good or Featured article (and would like the editorial comments such a nomination provides), I recommend that you nominate the article yourself. If, counter to my assumptions, you think I've graded the article too high, feel free to lower the class of the article as you see fit. - KSchutte 14:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No insult taken - I'm more curious. I looked at the philosophy of worth/value assessment a few years ago, and it seemed to be very difficult to be "objective" when making any assessment, or when selecting ranking criteria for the value of philosphical thought & any writing about such. Hence my conclusion was that one could never adopt a neutral point of view in philosophy assessment. Do you know how Philosophy Assessment has managed to work with such isssues? Sholto Maud 01:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is very difficult to be objective (what teacher could deny that?), so I admittedly haven't tried to take it too seriously. Mostly, I think the grading system is good for only a few things. First, it helps one to find articles related to one's area of interest that at least some people have read and found to be worth reading (Good and Featured articles). Next, it helps the editors keep track of relevant articles. There are, I'm sure, hundreds of philosophy-related articles out there that haven't been tagged, and when they are tagged, it is easier for potentially-interested editors to find them. Finally, I think the stub-classification is pretty useful. These are articles for which there is very little doubt that it needs a large amount of improvement, and I think exhibiting recognition of this fact makes philosophers on wikipedia look better to those who might otherwise misjudge us on the basis of our really bad articles. Really, though, because most articles are bad and even fewer cite any sources, the issues you raise haven't really come up. Sure, some of it is a guessing game, but I'm sure you know a failing paper when you see one!  :) I've also mostly avoided ranking the importance of the article topics, because those aren't really any battles in which I'm prepared to get involved. - KSchutte 16:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Ancient Forest

Hi, I have only studied Biology at college entry level. By your posts at Talk:Ecosystem ecology it appears your input would be appreciated on a discussion post I've placed at Talk:Old growth forest. Could you take a look? I'm proposing "Old growth forest" be moved to "Ancient forest" because it better describes the ecosystem in that the term "old growth" has a tree harvest bias. - Steve3849 talk 00:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial use of Image:HTOdumGreenhouse.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:HTOdumGreenhouse.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:HTOdumGreenhouse.jpg is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3).

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:HTOdumGreenhouse.jpg itself. 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. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 23:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Giannantoni article

Hello – thanks for the message. The {{prod}} warning was still on the article after five days, so it was deleted. You can request deletion review if you feel I deleted it in error. In the future, if you think an article proposed for deletion should not be deleted, be sure to remove the {{prod}} from the article before the date and time displayed on the notice. Thanks - KrakatoaKatie 00:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exergy Efficiency

Hi, I noticed that you've edited part of the exergy efficiency page in the past and I'm currently looking at rewriting pretty much the whole page. I've got an example of what I'm thinking on my user page and would welcome an opinion before I replace the page. I've tried to cover most of the point the original article made while removing inaccuracies. You had added a section on Maximum power, I don't know enough about this to comment but I'm happy for that to stay. I think it needs expanding/clarifying a bit more though. Thanks. Andrew.Ainsworth 10:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'll try and come up with an example of something, perhaps with some sort of diagram to go with it. I'll mess with the defintion section too and look at including energy efficiency. I suppose I probably should put some sort of information about myself on wiki as well. Andrew.Ainsworth 11:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I've had a look at the energy efficiency page now, useful work and work are the same thing really. Both have units of watts and the word useful is probably added just to clarify things. For instance in a gas turbine cycle, the turbine produces X amount of work, the compressor requires Y amount of work and is powered by the turbine. Hence you would say the net work output is X-Y, some people might refer to X-Y as useful work, while X is the work produced. Either way X-Y would always be the value of interest and calling it work, useful work or net work is all the same really.
The important thing is that work is equal to exergy. Mechanical work and electricity have no entropy associated with them and so the energy they carry is equal to exergy. I think the diagrams you've made will be useful, on the exergy diagram we would need to include a line showing that some exergy is destroyed but we have a choice of inputs we could use. I'll edit some of this later but for now I've got a few other things I need to be doing. I'll also have to look up how to upload images.Andrew.Ainsworth 10:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invite

 I notice you have expressed an interest in logic. Have you considered joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Logic? It is an effort to coordinate the work of Wikipedians who are knowledgeable about logic in an effort to improve the general quality and range of Wikipedia articles on logic topics. We at the project invite your participation and correspondence. Be well.

Gregbard 06:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes in the Howard T. Odum article

I'm sorry I reverted you, but I would like to leave those quotes out for the moment. - Mdd 23:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just seen that you made some more edits, and maybe I've been to quick in referting you. If so I'm sorry. As you probably have seen, have I completly wikified the article. I realize, that I probably made some mayor and minor mistakes, which you will have to correct... I want to give you the time to do so.

I however keep the opinion that those quotes should not return in the article. This is a matter of lay out. With the makeover I've shown that those remarks can also be listed in the references/notes. I'll like to keep it that way. Good luck. - Mdd 23:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Copied from the User talk:Mdd#Odum quotes
Thanks for your note on my userpage. I saw your edits. You have done major work, and as you say there is yin and yang in what has been done. I think some of the quotes should be left in for effect. I'll leave it alone for now, however I would like to see some of the quotes in the text of the article because they are challenging, give a good representation of the man's thinking, and hence, should not be relegated to the footnotes. I agree that my previous referencing was over the top, but perhaps we can come to a mid-way point. Some quotes should definately stay in the text. Sholto Maud 02:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this feed back. I think there is more at stake here then just the quotes. But first this:

  • You did a wonderful job bringing all the information about H.T. Odum together in the past years.
  • I merely did some art-directions and restructured this biographical article, like I did before in dozends similair cases. By doing so I also investigated what is still missing in the article, I collected and added some of these basic data, and I wondered and wonder what else can be done to improve the article. Now I think this article has great potential, but still needs a reasonable amount of work.
  • You also did a great job in the surrounding of the article... bringing together all kinds of information and illustrations.

Now my main interest at the moment is to improve the H.T. Odum article. And I'll like to work on that at the moment. I propose that we argue about article related subjects such as the quotes on the articles talk page. I'll also copy your above comment there and will respond there - Mdd 14:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:LINKSPAM on Environmental accounting

I've remove the spam link from the article again, the link provides no information, and only attempts to get the reader to purchase a collection of journal articles. Burzmali 11:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)