2309 Mr. Spock and User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
DaveGorman (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
→DEMANDING FAIR WIKIPEDIA FOR THOUSANDS DISSIDENTS: You are right but the matter is very serious - also for WIKI, or not? |
||
Line 1:
{{Calm talk}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 26
|algo = old(3d)
|archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
}}
<inputbox>
type=comment
bgcolor=#eeeeff
default=User talk:Jimbo Wales
buttonlabel=New message here!
</inputbox>
{{AutoArchivingNotice|small=yes|age=3|target=./Archive 25|dounreplied=yes|index=./Archive index|bot=MiszaBot III}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive index|mask=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive <#>|indexhere=nein|template=User:Jimbo Wales/indextemplate}}
{{archives|small=yes}}
== Anonymous/Tor editing, Solutions? ==
Hello.
<br/>(Quick note: This is not only intended for Mr. Wales. I'm very much interested in hearing other people's opinions as well)
<br/>So, it seems as though at least a couple editors feel that they've been victims of de facto bans (not blocks, but bans), based on their desire to anonymously edit. More generally, editors are actively discouraged from using them, and may feel pressured to choose between exposing personal information or simply not editing at all.
<br/>(Incidentally, before anyone tries to argue that little personal information is at stake, the amount of information I could collect about ''myself'' with just the IP records of my editing in wikipedia is somewhat disturbing)
<br/>The fact is, there are numerous reasons why a person might want to edit anonymously:
#Local censorship. -China's the obvious case, but I don't know a single government I particularly trust.
#Stalkers -Real life stalkers, including ex-spouses. If I ''did'' have an ex-wife, and they suspected they might have figured out my username, the ip logs here could easily tell them what country, province, city, building, and even ''personal office'' I was in, as well as the time and frequency that I travel to the US. Some people really ''do'' have ex's who are just that bad.
#Online stalkers -Obviously, we know that certain somebodies on certain websites have tried to 'out' editors. Imagine what they could do if, in a matter of a day, they could get all that information I just mentioned, as well as full name, personal address and home phone number.
#Sensitivity of information/retribution -While although all material needs to be sourced independently, it still remains a fact that a person might tend to want to write about topics close to their own lives. As a token example, suppose a person working for a large industry knew of publicly available EPA reports (or other such content) that was verifiable and reliable, but not widely known. They may wish to make that information more widely available, but have to worry about whether or not it would cost them their job.
As it is, admins can edit even when their IPs are blocked, correct?
<br/>I know that some people have batted around the idea of possibly allowing ipblock exemptions (I forget the actual term for it) for editors who request it. ''That way'', you can still block the anonymous IPs, to cut down on vandalism, but still allow people to edit with safety and confidence.
<br/>Frankly, I'm having a hard time understanding why this isn't already an option. Sure, people could still vandalize, but they do that anyways. And it would be a simple task to simply remove the exemption after the first (and last) offense.
<br/>It certainly seems better than excluding people who ''want'' to contribute, solely to preserve the appearance of discouraging those who wish to be destructive. And it would certainly provide no less safety than is currently present with AOL users. Those users have all the anonymity of proxy users, but don't even have ''soft'' blocks.
<br/>What I (and others) am suggesting is not even blanket softblocks for these IPs, but rather ''some'' mechanism of simply allowing them to receive an ipblock-exempt bit. This would leave proxy editors as being held to a ''higher'' standard than AOL users currently are, so I don't see how vandalism could really be a concern.
<br/>Thoughts? Comments? [[User:Bladestorm|Bladestorm]] 19:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I am a strong supporter of people using Tor to edit Wikipedia, and I think the current situation is quite unfortunate. There are complications to be sure, but the idea that admins can use Tor, while ordinary users can not, does not strike me as particularly appropriate. Anyone who is a normal trusted editor ought to be able to use Tor if they like... and why not?--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 19:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:From my understanding, the developers added the feature that allows admininstrators to edit while their underlying IP is blocked with the intention that it be given to trusted users, but have not created an interface to allow the permission to be assigned, and at present it is given automatically to administrators. Perhaps we should ask the developers if they can create an interface for it at a special page, and let sterwards and/or bureucrats and/or sysops be able to use the interface. --[[User:Deskana|Deskana]] <small>[[User talk:Deskana|(talk)]]</small> 19:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::That sounds like a wonderful idea. :) (Uh... happen to know how to contact the developers?) Incidentally, I think sysops could be trusted with the ability to assign that bit, no? It's hardly different in principle from blocking and unblocking. [[User:Bladestorm|Bladestorm]] 19:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::As the one who originally proposed that feature ([[bugzilla:3706]]), I can say my intention was to help trusted users (not only administrators, but also known non-vandal editors) who shared an IP address with non-logged-in vandals. The thought of using it to help trusted people bypass blocks on open proxies or tor outproxies (unless they happened to share an IP with an open proxy or tor outproxy) was never on my mind; in fact, such usage can be dangerous unless the secure server is being used (due to the possibility of password sniffing). I also never thought of a particular interface; my idea was that bureaucrats would be the ones somehow setting or resetting the flag. That this feature currently allow a sysop-only ability to edit via tor is an unfortunate side-effect (unfortunate due to it being sysop-only, not due to being able to edit via tor). --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 03:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I do realize that password-sniffing is still a concern if this is to be done. (I have to suspect it's not a ''major'' concern, but there's really no reason to ''not'' address a potential vulnerability when investigating a new feature) It seems to me that anyone requesting the exemption would have to agree to use the secure server. (And, for that matter, the secure server would need to be advertised at least a little bit better. I had no idea it even existed until I read a question about it in one of the RfA's) [[User:Bladestorm|Bladestorm]] 03:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Anyone editing through any proxy (or on any network they don't have personal control over the security of) should be editing using the secure server, this is certainly true. (Realistically, I imagine most TOR exit node operators have better things to do than sniff the connection on the off chance they catch a Wikipedia admin's password, but you never know.) Bladestorm, and anyone else with an opinion on this situation, you're certainly welcome to join the discussion at [[WT:NOP]], as currently exactly these questions are being decided there. (And Jimbo, of course, that includes you too if you'd like to drop in a word or two. :) ) [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 03:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::I thought the secure server used null encryption? --[[User:Deskana|Deskana]] <small>[[User talk:Deskana|(talk)]]</small> 03:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::You know what? I have a degree in computer science, and all these details are ''still'' tricky to follow. I can't imagine what it must be like to absolute laymen. [[User:Bladestorm|Bladestorm]] 04:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::No, it currently uses [[AES-256]], at least for me (I just checked). There's no way it can use only null encryption; Firefox, for instance, will not accept null encryption (check on <code>[[about:config]]</code> the default value for the booleans under <code>security.ssl2</code> and <code>security.ssl3</code>). --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 04:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I am so freaking glad I focused on AI and combinatorial optimization instead of encryption and network security. That's absolutely greek to me. :) [[User:Bladestorm|Bladestorm]] 04:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::: Cesar, you may want to have a look at [[:bugzilla:6711|Bug 6711]]. Closed as fixed... maybe undergoing testing or awaiting release? [[User:Titoxd|Tito<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]])</sup> 08:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
You guys might also want to take a look at [[bugzilla:9862|this]], which is the specific request to have this permission enabled on enwiki, including an extension that I wrote for it (Special:Makeipexempt). However, it seems to have stalled, and no one wishes to implement this (even though it'd be a very easy fix). <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>[[User:^demon|<span style="color:black;font-weight:bold;">demon</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:^demon|<span style="color:red">[omg plz]</span>]]</sup> <em style="font-size:10px;">00:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)</em>
:/me prods Jimmy to prod the devs :) I can think of [[User:Armedblowfish|a number]] of happy campers should this fix go through sooner rather than later... Cheers, '''[[User:Daniel|<span style="color:#2E82F4">Daniel</span>]]''' 00:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
== What does porn have to do with an Encyclopedia? ==
Why does Wikipedia allow porn? [[User:Tcrow777|<span style="background: #E56717; color: #000000;"> Tcrow777 </span>]][[User_talk:Tcrow777|<span style="background: #F88017; color: #FFFFFF;"> talk </span>]] 02:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:Because [[WP:CENSOR|it isn't censored]]. --'''[[User:The Raven's Apprentice|The Raven's Apprentice]]''' <sup>('''[[User Talk:The Raven's Apprentice|PokéNav]]'''|'''[[Special:Contributions/The Raven's Apprentice|Trainer Card]]''')</sup> 02:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::I know, but isn't that taking it to the extreme. [[User:Tcrow777|<span style="background: #E56717; color: #000000;"> Tcrow777 </span>]][[User_talk:Tcrow777|<span style="background: #F88017; color: #FFFFFF;"> talk </span>]] 03:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:::It isn't like we host pornography, we just don't censor images relevant to an article. Usually, they are fairly tasteful. Is there a particular image that you are objecting to?--[[User:Cronholm144|Cronholm]]<sup>[[User talk:Cronholm144|144]]</sup> 03:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Technically, the Wikimedia Foundation does host porn because it is stored on their servers and is freely available. I object to all porn. [[User:Tcrow777|<span style="background: #E56717; color: #000000;"> Tcrow777 </span>]][[User_talk:Tcrow777|<span style="background: #F88017; color: #FFFFFF;"> talk </span>]] 03:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Please don't be unreasonable about it—it does not show explicit sexual acts (such as a facial actually happening or anal sex being done by two guys), and therefore is not pornography. — [[User:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;text-decoration:none;"> '''''$PЯIПG'''''</span>]][[User talk:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;text-decoration:none;">rαgђ </span>]] 03:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::Check out [[fellatio]], Spring. Or [[List of sex positions]]. An illustration is as bad as a photograph. But the fact remains, Wikipedia is not censored, and [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|IDONTLIKEIT]] is not a valid reason for removal. --'''[[User:The Raven's Apprentice|The Raven's Apprentice]]''' <sup>('''[[User Talk:The Raven's Apprentice|PokéNav]]'''|'''[[Special:Contributions/The Raven's Apprentice|Trainer Card]]''')</sup> 03:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Information about sex is a part of "the sum of all human knowledge." We present it in an encyclopedic way, and I very much doubt that people come to wikipedia seeking the titillation that the word "porn" suggests.--[[User:Cronholm144|Cronholm]]<sup>[[User talk:Cronholm144|144]]</sup> 03:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::These illustrations do not show it happening. They show what does happen, but they do not show it happen'''ing'''. — [[User:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;text-decoration:none;"> '''''$PЯIПG'''''</span>]][[User talk:Springeragh|<span style="background:#808;color:#fff;text-decoration:none;">rαgђ </span>]] 03:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:Porn (and sex in general) is a very common field of human endeavor. Therefore, it makes sense for Wikipedia to document it. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 04:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess a more relevant question is not "Why does Wikipedia host porn?" but "Why am I so obsessed with porn I feel the need to "take a stand" against encylopedically written articles on it?" [[User:Dev920|Dev920]] (Have a nice day!) 10:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:Or, alternatively, one might ask "Why do I reflexively and obsequiously defend a former porn king (Jimbo Wales) when the subject comes up here?".+[[User:ILike2BeAnonymous|ILike2BeAnonymous]] 12:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::I think this editor should be blocked for violation of WP:NPA. I won't do it myself because I am personally involved.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 15:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Sternly warned, if that is sufficient, [[User:GDonato|GDonato]] ('''[[User talk:GDonato|talk]]''') 16:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Im Deutschen haben wir dafür ein Sprichwort: "Was stört es die Eiche, wenn sich ein Schwein an ihr reibt?" - in diesem Sinne - auf sowas gar nicht eingehen. Wenn man es beachtet, wird es erst wichtig. [[User:Marcus Cyron|Marcus Cyron]] 17:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
::::OK, since I don't speak German (and neither do many others here, no doubt, this being the English Wikipedia), here's a rough translation (''very'' rough, rendered by [http://www.freetranslation.com freetranslation.com]) of your comments:
:::::''In the German, we have for that a proverb: "What it disturbs itself the oak, if a pig at its reibt?" - In this sense - on such a thing do not go in at all. If one notes it, it becomes first important.'' +[[User:ILike2BeAnonymous|ILike2BeAnonymous]] 17:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::I'd translate the proverb as "What does the oak care when a pig rubs against it?" --[[User:Dapete|Dapete]][[User talk:Dapete|ばか]] 09:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
::To which I would reply, "Why do you infer that by expressing an opinion a person is acting in defence of a third party on the basis that said third party may have or might have had an interest in the subject being discussed?" [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] 13:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::Right, because Bomis and Wikipedia have SO MUCH IN COMMON THAT YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH US. They were both started by Jimbo Wales. They both have some content you probably wouldn't show your kids. ''''Oh god, Wikipedia is a porn site!''''
::Please. We aren't censored, we aren't for little kids, and we don't want to be. The sum of human knowledge doesn't end at names and dates. [[Mike the headless chicken]]- [[Fucking, Austria]]- hell, pretty much anything in [[WP:ODD]] might not be something you'd find in Britannica, but they're sure as heck notable and interesting subjects. WP isn't meant to be a free Britannica, or a free Encarta. We're meant to be a free encyclopedia, and that's free as in speech, too. Unless you can provide a good reason why things that are probably ''the only reason you are alive right now'' are unencyclopedic, you should probably stop flinging crap. --<big>[[User:L|L]]</big><sup><small>[[User talk:L|augh!]]</small></sup> 13:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:::The wonderful thing about this encyclopedia is that it aims to cover EVERY single topic in the world in great detail. That's why it is so popular. It doesn't shy away from various topics for fear of upsetting people. Why should all articles with images of nice, juicy, blood dripping slices of meat be deleted just because vegetarians might riot on looking at them? The world's best encyclopedia covers everything and anything, going to any length to explain it properly. This is why this encyclopedia is (in that sense) the best there is and why it is used so much. Shouldn't all encyclopedias (other than children's encyclopedias) be like that? <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">[[User:Lradrama|<span style="color:red">Lra</span>]][[User talk:Lradrama|drama]]</span> 09:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::::How many pictures of [[Erection]]s do we need to illustrate an article? And why do we keep both ''unused images'' and the editors who seek imaginative ways to display them to the ''unsuspecting''? ([http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?w=_100000&i=Image:Erection%20by%20David%20Shankbone.jpg#end Example problem - graphic]) Note that the image in question was deleted from Wikipedia but re-uploaded to Commons. [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] 17:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::I know there was a warning, but I clicked anyway. I wish I didn't, but I did. [[User:The_undertow|''the_undertow'']] [[User_talk:The_undertow|<font style="color:5bf8a9"><small><sup>talk</sup></small></font>]] 07:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::I think we should leave it how it is. After all, Wikipedia has lots of stuff that arn't in other encyclopedias. And there arn't any "porny" pictures even on the porn article itself. [[User:Assasin Joe | <big>⊕</big>Assasin Joe]] <sup> [[User_talk:Assasin Joe |talk]] </sup> 18:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
An answer to the question at the begining: Why not? It depends to live like to eat, to drink or to sleep. Not to talk (and write) about those things would be very bad. Sexuality, and this includes Pornography and Prostitution, is a normal thing, only the world dont want it to know or realize. Wikipedia will show the world. And Pornography is everywhere. And people who don't want to read about it musn't look out for these themes. [[User:Marcus Cyron|Marcus Cyron]] 17:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:Most of the images of [[Erection]] also have very odd liscencing. (An image the uploader took,... yeah right) If wikipedia is to have any images, then they should at least have correct liscencing that corresponds to Wikipedia's Fair-Use policy.
::Fair use doesn't apply here because the photographers are wikieditors and released the image with a free licence. There is nothing strange about that, it is the normal situation on En.Wikipedia and the only situation on commons. BTW please always sign your posts so we can see who is saying what. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|Taste the Korn]] 18:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, might I reccomend that if you have a problem with wikipedias stance on censorship, porn and sex. you might want to check out [http://www.conservapedia.com/Porn this project] which believes porn does not exist as well as many other controversial topics. [[User:Chrislk02|-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)]] 18:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:That project was deleted! I want Wikipedia to be safe for all users, an Elementary School user might be able to handle profanity (as long as G.D. is not mentioned more then it needs to be), but porn is something no Elementary School user should see. [[User:Tcrow777|<span style="background: #E56717; color: #000000;"> Tcrow777 </span>]][[User_talk:Tcrow777|<span style="background: #F88017; color: #FFFFFF;"> talk </span>]] 08:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
::The deletion was the joke. Encyclopedia's are not meant for elementary school students(we have a different wiki for that). Another thing, what self respecting parent would let their child have unrestricted internet access, responsibility lies with them. Lord knows if the child searches "porn" he would be lucky to get the wiki article over the other stuff that is out there. Also, porn isn't the only thing on wiki inappropriate for young 'uns, so you propose censoring of a massive amount of material. --[[User:Cronholm144|Cronholm]]<sup>[[User talk:Cronholm144|144]]</sup> 08:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:::TCrow, every elementary school student knows what a naked person looks like, and many of them have had some kind of sex education. A few images demonstrating (most of the sex ones are drawings and not even real images) sex or genitalia are not porn. Its the same thing you'd find in a sex ed class, health class, or a biology/human anatomy class. What elementary school child would be looking up what a [[Penis]] or the [[Kama Sutra]] is on Wikipedia anyways? You also seem to be showing a Christian bias with that profanity comment, Wikipedia is for all walks of life and what offends one person may not bother someone else at all, we don't have to view something we see as offensive; there is no need to censor the whole project. [[User:Darthgriz98|<font color="#084B8A">Darth</font>]][[User_Talk:Darthgriz98|<font color="#008080">Griz98</font>]] 14:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
== [[Kaaba]] ==
You may wish to take a look at the on-going discussion on this article concerning its inclusion of a depiction of the Islamic prophet [[Muhammad]]. It's a rather contentious debate and at least one admin is pushing for a "compromise" between those who want inclusion based on the fact that the image is informative and that Wiki is not censored and those who find the image is offensive. I believe that any "compromise" here is a violation of both the spirit and letter of Wiki policy which is why I bring this issue up to you. --[[User:Strothra|Strothra]] 20:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
== Comba-Tai ==
Dear Mr. Whales, I would like the Comba-Tai page completely deleted because there was not adequate time given to the discussion of this page. It is my belief that there were some inflammatory ignorant statements made against this African American Martal art that are legally noteworthy. I am the proprietor of this system and I formerly request that the Comba-Tai page be completely removed. It is my belief that Wikipedia procedures lend to a high degree of biases which is unworthy of any martial art. By the way, there is no where stated in any Comba-Tai article that immigrant “Nights Templar” went to Jones County. Such ignorance is indicative of what I believe to be bias evaluators on this page. Also the “Asian etymology” of some of its techniques is evident in the Asian systems it practices. What are they talking about? Again this look’s like bias ignorance that looks really bad. I mention these areas because they were made by people who agreed to delete this page. 90% of the comments are opinion, none are based on fact. What encyclopedic value it that. So please remove any mention of Comba-Tai from what I believe to be an international disgrace. Thank you.
--[[User:216.241.52.114|216.241.52.114]] 22:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:To 216.241.52.114, I've place a header above your comment to separate it from the preceding comment. I would also mention that I could not find Comba-Tai, even as a deleted article. Can you provide better details? [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] 22:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::The discussion is here[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comba_Tai] Best regards, [[User:Hamster Sandwich|Hamster Sandwich]] 23:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm sure that Jimbo, as well as 216.241.52.114, would thank you for that. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] 23:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
No offense, but trying to get your article deleted from Wikipedia, on the grounds that you don't like Wikipedia, will probably draw a lot of attention to you...which in turn will '''force''' Wikipedia to have an article on you --<big>[[User:L|L]]</big><sup><small>[[User talk:L|augh!]]</small></sup> 19:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::Since the article was already deleted, I am going to take this as a request to courtesy-blank the discussion. By the way, in all similar cases, I encourage anyone to do courtesy blankings of such pages. When an article is deleted and there have been some harsh comments (and the truth or untruth of those comments seems to me not very important) it is often a good way to let someone walk away with dignity. The page could always be referenced or restored if it became necessary, but in the meantime there is no need to have a public page about how unimportant someone or something is.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 19:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Do you encourage blanking of all deletion debates similar to this, or only on request? --[[User:Deskana|Deskana]] <small>[[User talk:Deskana|(talk)]]</small> 19:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::::I would say we can be pretty casual about it. It's really no big deal, less than deletion even, and deletion is no big deal too. In many cases, there is no reason to blank, but if it is a living person or seems to be a "vanity" article where the person has emotionally defended inclusion, it seems courteous. Just depends on the context I guess.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 22:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::I thank you for the direction you have provided. Best regards, [[User:Hamster Sandwich|Hamster Sandwich]] 23:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
== User:Smatprt violations ==
There is an annoying user who has been complained about by at least six editors for obstructing the development of the Shakespeare project. I suggest a long ban. Testimony can be found here.[[Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#User:Smatprt_violations]] ([[User:Felsommerfeld|Felsommerfeld]] 22:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC))
:On second thoughts, maybe on reading those comments from editors he has learnt how distressing his behaviour has been to people and he can become a better person. So I withdraw my previous request with this hope in mind. ([[User:Felsommerfeld|Felsommerfeld]] 23:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC))
If he keeps it up post on [[WP:ANI]], they should help you. Otherwise continue improving articles.--[[User:Cronholm144|Cronholm]]<sup>[[User talk:Cronholm144|144]]</sup> 23:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:Felsommerfeld has posted there, and on at least a dozen different admin and article talk pages. So far, the responding administrators have found NO reason for action and, in fact, have advised Felsommerfeld to stop deleting properly referenced material (that happens to disagree with his POV). He has also been advised to work things out at talk, instead of making false accusations of sock-puppetry (proven untrue) and the like.[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 04:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
::It should also be noted that Felsommerfeld's complaint-spree appeared after I filed an administrative incident report [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=144128818] against him for making mass deletions of referenced material. The administrator on that case has warned Felsommerfeld about this and posted advice to the other mainstream editors of the Shakespeare Authorship page (who keep deleting material there, too) here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shakespearean_authorship_question&diff=prev&oldid=144622794] and here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shakespearean_authorship_question&diff=next&oldid=144653341]. Felsommerfeld's implied threats to retaliate on pages like this are here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shakespearean_authorship_question&diff=prev&oldid=143989844] and here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shakespearean_authorship_question&diff=next&oldid=143989844] and here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shakespearean_authorship_question&diff=next&oldid=143993662] Thanks for considering this info. [[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 14:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
On third thoughts, I don't think he's learnt anything and judging by this tirade will probably continue on his mission to rid the Shakespeare articles of all mention of the Stratford man, replacing him with the Earl of Oxford. It can't all be me if at least six editors have testified against him here!!! [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive95#User:Smatprt_violations]] ([[User:Felsommerfeld|Felsommerfeld]] 09:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
:This is definitely not the place to discuss this--[[User:Cronholm144|Cronholm]]<sup>[[User talk:Cronholm144|144]]</sup> 15:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
== Just in case... ==
Someone's been playing around with TOR nodes tonight, and I've done a handful of blocks on those that I found being abused by at least a banned user. However, someone on a separate TOR node decided to point me to the conversation above, and has since been using others to replace the message and be a general pain in the butt. It's very likely that some other IP is going to bastardize this message or tack on a ZOMG ADMINABUSE to this, but I believe the message about you thinking no one should be using an open proxy (or a TOR proxy) to be editting Wikipedia holds in this situation.—[[User:Ryulong|<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryulong|<font color="gold">竜龍</font>]]) 10:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=145196524&oldid=145195720]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=145194731&oldid=145189150]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=145176926&oldid=145157863]
Well, I was close.—[[User:Ryulong|<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryulong|<font color="gold">竜龍</font>]]) 10:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:[[Image:Symbol wtf vote.svg|20px]] '''zOMGadminabuse''' --<big>[[User:L|L]]</big><sup><small>[[User talk:L|augh!]]</small></sup> 19:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
== Comment on your user page ==
I hate to say this, but the edit count/summary/usage link in the top right is incompatible with classic skin, as it falls on top of the links to my use page, talk, preferences etc. Can something be done about this? – [[User:Tivedshambo|Tivedshambo]]<small> [[User talk:Tivedshambo|(talk)]]</small> 21:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:Should be easy. I'll take a look. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|Taste the Korn]] 00:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:OKI've fixed it in classic. Doesn't look too bad in Monobook, perhaps someone else would like to play with css a bit . If you do though, please check the classic skin (and the others) to make sure your changes do not look awful in the other skins. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|Taste the Korn]]
::Thanks. – [[User:Tivedshambo|Tivedshambo]]<small> [[User talk:Tivedshambo|(talk)]]</small> 05:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
== SCOX Trolls ==
These accounts are at it again. How about some help Mr. Wales, if you have time. It may be a good idea for you to refer the entire mess over to the arbcom to sort it all out.
*[[User:Pfagerburg]]
*[[User:Aim Here]]
*[[User:Kebron]]
They have been repeatedly told to stay away from me, but have not gotten the message. I will be out of town until next Tuesday on business in Texas. I can be reached by email.
[[User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey|Jeffrey Vernon Merkey]] 03:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:Have you gone through the typical series of steps to resolve this problem? Reasoned conversation, [[WP:WQA]], [[WP:RFC]], [[WP:ANI]], [[WP:MC]], [[WP:ARBCOM]]. --[[User:Cronholm144|Cronholm]]<sup>[[User talk:Cronholm144|144]]</sup> 03:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
::No, he hasn't. But he insists that most people who criticise him are trolling, and for some odd reason, people actually ''believe'' him often. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small>[[User_talk:Amarkov|moo!]]</small> 03:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:::He might have a case with [[User:Pfagerburg|Pfagerburg]] but the others don't appear to be trolls.--[[User:Cronholm144|Cronholm]]<sup>[[User talk:Cronholm144|144]]</sup> 03:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Doesn't really matter know. Someone's blocked everyone involved except me, including these three. So they'll be reflexively unblocked, and we'll go to Arbcom really fast. Enjoy the circus, I have to figure out how to not be listed as a party to the dispute. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small>[[User_talk:Amarkov|moo!]]</small> 03:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
<s>Does Mr. Merkey have some kind of power here? It seems unreasonable to block users at his beck and call.</s>--[[User:Cronholm144|Cronholm]]<sup>[[User talk:Cronholm144|144]]</sup> 03:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:Never mind he got blocked too. This could make for an interesting case.--[[User:Cronholm144|Cronholm]]<sup>[[User talk:Cronholm144|144]]</sup> 04:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
== Unfair actions by an admin and a serious issue plaguing Wikipedia. ==
Dear Mr. Wales,
I, [[User:Altruism]] would like to bring to your notice the repeated abuse of admin powers by [[User:Blnguyen]].
This is the second time in a fortnight that I've been blocked for 'violations' in [[Telugu script]]. Incidentally, this time [[User:Blnguyen]] not only unprotected the article (which was in deep conflict) but was also involved in "major edits", when he should have recused himself due to a "conflict of interest." He was not explicit in mentioning the reasons for the "major edits" in the
"edit summary," only caring to mention "rm dubious pictures." This only shows his suspicion at those pictures. After I reverted his edits twice, another user reverted my reverts by explicitly mentioned the reasons in the "edit summary," which I respected. [[User:Blnguyen]] has been extremely hasty and violated the last guideline of [[Wikipedia:Copyright_violations]] as no appropriate warnings, nor any explicit mention of his reasons was made in the edit summary of [[Telugu script]] .
Please see my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blnguyen#Finally.2C_the_block.2C_thanks_to_you.2C_ends earlier conversation] with [[User:Blnguyen]]. He is dangerously courteous and evasive in answering, when asked about why he was biased and hasty in blocking me. I strongly feel that Admin privileges are probably the last thing to be vested with such biased users.
I also have concrete evidence of [[User:Blnguyen]] supporting and succumbing to bait from a '''gang of users''', engaged in widespread vandalism/trolling in several articles, especially those pertaining to [[Andhra Pradesh]], [[Telugu script]], [[Beary bashe]], [[Belgaum border dispute]] etc. Plz. see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive267#My_previously_deleted_post_during_my_24_hr._block a complaint of mine, which fell on deaf ears;] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Sarvagnya#User:Sarvagnya a complaint of sock-puppetry.]
I request your immediate intervention in this major dispute especially the '''users ganging up''' plaguing and disturbing at least several hundreds of users. I'm bothering you because I like many others had no other recourse anywhere on Wikipedia. Thanking You, <font face="Trebuchet MS Bold Italic"><font color="Red"><b>[[User:Altruism|Altruism]]</b><b><font color="Green"><sup>[[User talk:Altruism|To talk]]</sup></font></b> </font></font> 07:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
::This is ridiculous. The first block was for 5RR. After that it was brought to my attention that there were copyvios on the page, so I made my edits to remove these copyvios. Then I unprotected the page so that everyone could have an editing opportunity. Altruism decided to reinstate unsrouced pictures, which were already tagged as problematic on the caption on the screen. '''[[User:Blnguyen|<font color="GoldenRod">Blnguyen</font>]]''' (''[[User talk:Blnguyen|<font color="#FA8605">bananabucket</font>]]'') 07:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:Have you tried ANI or RFC?--[[User:Cronholm144|Cronholm]]<sup>[[User talk:Cronholm144|144]]</sup> 07:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
::Sigh... I figured as much. Can you two find some way to work it out?--[[User:Cronholm144|Cronholm]]<sup>[[User talk:Cronholm144|144]]</sup> 08:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I did make 5RRs the first time I was blocked. But all I did was to keep the content intact before my request for re-protection was acceded. I requested unprotection in the first place, only in [[WP:AGF]] , in order to arrive at a consensus on [[Telugu script]] on the lines of [[Telugu language]]. I can definitely say that [[User:Blnguyen]] reacts to different users in very different ways, not uniformly, which is why he should be relieved of his "admin responsibilities." He is biased. I'd apologise to Mr. Wales for spamming his discussion page, but for the importance of the larger issue. Thanking You, <font face="Trebuchet MS Bold Italic"><font color="Red"><b>[[User:Altruism|Altruism]]</b><b><font color="Green"><sup>[[User talk:Altruism|To talk]]</sup></font></b> </font></font> 08:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:He might not even comment, and this kind of thing seems all to common here. I suggest you work it out between yourselves, or, if that is not possible, you seek help via the [[WP:RFC]] process. If that fails then go to mediation. These steps were put in place specifically for cases like these.--[[User:Cronholm144|Cronholm]]<sup>[[User talk:Cronholm144|144]]</sup> 08:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
It just may not work because he's an admin, whose powers he's least hesitant of using.
My main message to Mr. Wales is to highlight the traumatic case of '''users ganging up''' and/or indulging in [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|Sock puppetry]] and getting away, probably in collusion with some admins!! --<font face="Trebuchet MS Bold Italic"><font color="Red"><b>[[User:Altruism|Altruism]]</b><b><font color="Green"><sup>[[User talk:Altruism|To talk]]</sup></font></b> </font></font> 08:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:They are not socks, unless someone has the time and energy to create and maintain 5 very active accounts with a variety of edit patterns just to gang up on you. I think ganging up in this case might be [[WP:CON]] and you might want to try to work with them rather than against them.--[[User:Cronholm144|Cronholm]]<sup>[[User talk:Cronholm144|144]]</sup> 08:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
To say the least, I've pro-actively tried to collaborate and do constructive edits. I've tried arbitration, but to little or no avail. At least 2 of the 5 mentioned may be indulging in [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry]], one case of which was confirmed by an investigator, only to be cleared of the charges on the basis of [[User:Blnguyen]] and others' report. Is it appropriate to discuss this on Mr. Wales' page? Thanking You, <font face="Trebuchet MS Bold Italic"><font color="Red"><b>[[User:Altruism|Altruism]]</b><b><font color="Green"><sup>[[User talk:Altruism|To talk]]</sup></font></b> </font></font> 08:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:Arbitration?(I don't think you have gone to Arbcom have you?) that would be premature. It seems mediation [[WP:M]] is the correct venue at this point. Yes, this is semi-inappropriate for this venue, but it happens all the time anyway. --[[User:Cronholm144|Cronholm]]<sup>[[User talk:Cronholm144|144]]</sup> 09:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm open to [[WP:M]] but what about the damage already done. My unblemished track record in Wikipedia was spoilt not once but twice.
More importantly, what about the larger issue (different/same users ganging up) of repeated reverts, deletions by absolutely rigid users. Shouldn't this be examined by a larger audience, probably to block any loopholes that WP policy may have, currently. Could you throw any solutions? Thanking You, <font face="Trebuchet MS Bold Italic"><font color="Red"><b>[[User:Altruism|Altruism]]</b><b><font color="Green"><sup>[[User talk:Altruism|To talk]]</sup></font></b> </font></font> 09:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, Mediation. That leaves it open to a wider audience, where people will comment. If you feel it really needs lots of opinions, go to [[WP:RFC]] and create a RFC on either yourself or the admin. Mediation is definately the best option. Also, even if you were trying to do good, breaching 3RR is a serious offense. [[WP:AGF]] does not count in that case. Also, in the case of copyvios, it is normal to remove until investigation - having them online can cause major problems and/or legal troubles for Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]] [[User:DeadBot|(Bot)]]</small> 09:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
But shouldn't copyvio or something to that effect have been mentioned in the "edit summary." [[User:Blnguyen]] only says "rm dubious pictures." As far as the dictionary goes, it only indicates suspicion, which is why I reverted. But after [[User:Zamkudi]] mentioned the reasons, I stopped. Despite stopping, I was blocked by the same admin [[User:Blnguyen]] for the 2<sup>nd</sup> time in a fortnight. Yes, I did violate 3RR the first time. Thanking You, <font face="Trebuchet MS Bold Italic"><font color="Red"><b>[[User:Altruism|Altruism]]</b><b><font color="Green"><sup>[[User talk:Altruism|To talk]]</sup></font></b> </font></font> 09:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
::[conflict] Well, the "larger audience" usually(hopefully) gets involved when you post at RFC or a a relevant wikiproject. As for ganging up, that is their consensus versus your lone view. Unless you can convince somebody or them that you are in the right on an issue, then your edits won't stand. I recommend using policy WP:V and WP:RS when in a content dispute and WP:AGF when in a personal one. Try to find some common ground and engage them on the talkpage with suggestions. You might consider making a sandbox that demonstrates what you would like the article to look like. This will avoid mainspace conflict. I think this is probably a good start anyway.--[[User:Cronholm144|Cronholm]]<sup>[[User talk:Cronholm144|144]]</sup> 09:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
There is probably much more to it than just 'consensus' and I'm not the lone person to feel this. I can assure you that there are at least several tens of editors, who feel the same as myself. In brief, the problem is that the "gang," is from a state in [[India]], whose neighbouring states' editors feel wronged, mainly to due to their very unusual, highly systematic and efficient co-operation between them. Please see "Article historys" and decide for yourself. What else would or should be their reason to disgustingly interfere in all major articles pertaining to those of their neighbouring states? I'm not making a mine out of a molehill. What I'm saying is the "Gospel truth." I can provide the names, proofs etc. if needed. Thanking You, <font face="Trebuchet MS Bold Italic"><font color="Red"><b>[[User:Altruism|Altruism]]</b><b><font color="Green"><sup>[[User talk:Altruism|To talk]]</sup></font></b> </font></font> 09:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:Am I to understand that there is some [[ethnocentrism]] involved in this case? If so this might be a little more problematic(my recommendations stand however.) I advise that you gather your evidence and supporters and go to the mediation committee. '''But'''Only after you have tried one last time ''sincerely'' to work it out. There is not much more to say and this thread is getting rather long. So lets try to wrap it up on this particular talkpage. --[[User:Cronholm144|Cronholm]]<sup>[[User talk:Cronholm144|144]]</sup> 10:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, I'm more of a pacifist than an aggressor (at least in WP). I've tried explaining and reasoning it out with at least some members of the "gang." This may not be with respect to different ethnic groups, but to people from different parts (unfortunately, only neighbouring states) of [[India]], divided in this case by language, culture etc.. Why should anybody show an unusual amount of interest in removing facts (no citations), deletions, including objectionable portions etc.? [[Telugu script]] is a good example of this. I suggest that you please have a look at it, its contributors, their contributions etc. --<font face="Trebuchet MS Bold Italic"><font color="Red"><b>[[User:Altruism|Altruism]]</b><b><font color="Green"><sup>[[User talk:Altruism|To talk]]</sup></font></b> </font></font> 10:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:I will take a look as time allows, I hope that you find a resolution--[[User:Cronholm144|Cronholm]]<sup>[[User talk:Cronholm144|144]]</sup> 11:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I eagerly look forward to an amicable resolution of the dispute. The last I want is animosity. Thank You. <font face="Trebuchet MS Bold Italic"><font color="Red"><b>[[User:Altruism|Altruism]]</b><b><font color="Green"><sup>[[User talk:Altruism|To talk]]</sup></font></b> </font></font> 11:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
== DEMANDING FAIR WIKIPEDIA FOR THOUSANDS DISSIDENTS ==
Dear Mr. Wales,
sorry to involve you demanding fairness for meanwhile obviously many thousands [[dissidents]] of Astronony, as claimed in
[[http://www.cosmologystatement.org/ An Open Letter to the Scientific Community]] Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004
This is only one document of many thousands to be found. It seems as if [[Big bang]] have become more and more something like a religion than a totally serious "winner of a scientific contest”. We feel: Are millions indoctrinated, mislead by one sole theory? Preventing own thinking?
It seems to be protected by a caste, erasing all disliked content as in former religious [[inquisition]]? We feel students only educated in mainstream, more and more. Thus they more and more seem to fanatically protect “their religion”. Only a little bit proved in related
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Philosophical_and_religious_interpretations WIKI Big-bang-section]]
showing how many religions support it incl. ‘’“[[Pope Pius XII]] was an enthusiastic proponent of the Big Bang”’’ for God's saying THERE WILL BE LIGHT - AND THERE WAS LIGHT... (no real joke: what about a new article [[Big bang religion]]?).
[[Feynman]]'s [[Cargo cult science]]
should become well-known for WIKIPEDIA as published in [[http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/02/CargoCult.pdf]] and we saw similar prior intentions of yourself.
1. INTRODUCTION:
German Astronomical group, not perfect in English (with a little help understandable?), I am writer.
We saw: Well known engaged dissidents (some of them already gravely affected: see below), fight against [[mainstream]]-astronomy like against windmills feel/felt themselves finally permanently scanned in WIKI in order to revert each writing of them quasi automatically (meanwhile we and I myself personally feel already a bit similar). But this was not prior reason to be (still) anonymous. Our HP was cracked, redirected to “sexy sites”; administrator decided also dynamic IP.
DEPRECIATIONS as Experienced: Wiki’s Physicians and Administrators disqualify famous alternative physics simply as no more valid because overruled by Big Bang. Their physicians depreciated consistently in WIKI different astronomical meanings. Even relating to the dissidents anyhow was reverted, partly called as “krank” physics.
SOME DISSIDENTS's cites reverted with links to original papers of [[Halton Arp]], [[Geoffrey Burbidge]] and his wife, [[Ashmore]], [[Assis]]; but especially [[Fritz Zwicky]] seeming to have been the representative of the precedent [[Standard cosmology]].
Talk pages of 2 involved Admins were promptly cleared.
: corr. Assis to find is
2. OBVIOUS FALSIFICATION OF HISTORY?
[[http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/108.pdf The Biblical Astronomer]]
vol. 14, no 108, spring 2004, p.33: ‘’"Dr. [[Hubble]] never committed himself to the theory of the expanding universe"’’in a letter to Dr. R. A. Millikan, dated 15 May 1952, cited: ‘’“Personally I should agree with you that this hypothesis (tired light) is more simple and less irrational for all of us”’’ - see also http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html.
Only one incredible but evident falsification of history – in WIKI permanent-ized for millions teachers, students, pupils an normal people – is, that [[Hubble]] proved Big bang. Many serious paper show the bare contrary, e.g.:
3. ZWICKY's FORMER MAINSTREAM ASTRONOMY
Zwicky’s acknowledged astronomical theory, now depreciated (not only because a to him associated name [[Tired light]] coined by [[Richard Tolman]]) was:
Photons have a [[relativistic mass]] by [[Planck physic]]s, – by Einstein predicted and himself calculated but not understood (well-known). Therefore photons with such a kind of mass must loose energy in any gravitational potential field. He considered a (in mean value) homogenous and isotropic [[potential field]] by homogenous distribution of charges of masses (all solids and interstellar gas considered ideally as equally distributed everywhere).
Zwicky calculated at first - known by ancient physicians since about 1880- the potential from an arbitrarily chosen ZERO-point of distributed charges. For any growing distance this results in a consistently growing gravitational potential.
In 1929 he wrote a famous alternative theory using the temporal differential of the potential field (called [[momentum]]) for a mass and finally for a photons in
[[http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/15/10/773.pdf - F.Zwicky: On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines through Interstellar Space]] p.775ff. (mainly p.777).
Not a rather logic 3D-theory? Not needing an unimaginable 4D space! Confirmed even by Hubble himself, nearly everywhere quite falsely made researcher prooving grounds for Big bang.
4. MISUNDERSTANDING? LACK OF KNOWLEDGE? PHOTON’S "ZERO-MASS§
* Our reminder to this is found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Photon#Please_do_not_forget
* While in EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG photons (and gravitons) never have any mass, see e.g http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Physical_properties ... the whole other scientific world knows and calculate with a called (photon’s and graviton’s) [[relativistic mass]] as postulated by Einstein himself, predicting thereby the [[Einstein effect]]s, especially [[gravitational redshift]]. Not only one here related GERMAN WIKI says about photons in its section MASSE in
[[http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Masse Photonenmasse]]
explicitly mean, that and why real photons never can have a zero mass: "''Da die elektromagnetische Wechselwirkung jedoch eine unendliche Reichweite hat, zerfallen Photonen niemals und können daher keine Ruhemasse tragen... Die spezielle Relativitätstheorie hingegen verbietet nicht nur das Erreichen der Lichtgeschwindigkeit für jedwedes mit Ruhemasse behaftete Objekt, sondern liefert auch den direkten mathematischen Nachweis...''"
* ESA = European Space Agency are certainly no stupids calculating satellites in space. They have learnt from the failure of [[Pioneer anomaly]] in http://arxiv.org/vc/gr-qc/papers/0603/0603032v1.pdf : ‘’"1. Introduction: It is well known that the mass of the photon and graviton in vacuum must be nonzero. The first limit is given by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle 1 and the second by the measurement of the cosmological constant in our universe2-4."’’
* http://www.math.uni-wuppertal.de/~scholz/preprints/pioneer_12_01_07.pdf ANOTHER LOOK AT THE PIONEER ANOMALY, Erhard Scholz Univ. Wuppertal claims that only a kind of Tired Light - called there “downscaling photons” - could solve [[Pioneer anomaly]] as mentioned e.g. in [http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064 Physical Review D 65:082004(0–50)].
and thousands others to be found not only in GOOGLE (nearly 10.000 only to ZWICKY TIRED LIGHT but a physics-Project WIKI-Admin meant he is more known for other things).
5. QUANTUM PHYSICS ARE NOT UNDERSTANDABLE, INCL. WIKI-ADMINS!
Not only “Einstein’s Spuk” (spooky physics) is proved now
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation Quantum-Teleportation]]
showing that [[Schrödinger]] and Planck were right (blasting General Relativity = GR?)
FEYNMAN, R.P. [1985] QED, The Strange Story of Light and Matter, Princeton University Press, describe [[Quantum mechanics]] the transmission of light through a transparent medium:
“''photons do nothing but go from one electron to another, and reflection and transmission are really the result of an electron'' (remark: mainly in molecules) ''picking up a photon, ”scratching its head”, so to speak, and emitting a new photon... What I’m going to tell you is what we teach our physics students in the third or year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don’t understand it…. You see my physics students don’t understand it that is because I don’t understand it. Nobody does.''"
WIKI-ADMINISTRATORS ELIMINATE WHAT THEY CANNOT UNDERSTAND?
Obviously nobody of a large scale of physicians of WIKI PROJECT understood or know solutions of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativily
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exact_solutions : This article or section may be confusing or unclear for some readers.
And in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutions_of_the_Einstein_field_equations/ : This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.
Basic, well-known solutions were imposed by us in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solutions_of_the_Einstein_field_equations&oldid=142221128#Known_solutions , promptly reverted!
6. OUR PHYSICIANS AND MEMBERS
Until 2006 they mainly seemed to be - but now more and more "were" - [[Big bang]] fans.
In 2006 we met [[John Dobson]] and a French Professor in an Astronomical-Fair.
Meanwhile we learnt quite drastically, that so-called Standard Cosmology is mainly not believed by normal people and that not only by above mentioned critics.
[[Non-standard cosmologies]] and [[Tired light]] are made tendencious also as invalid, as non-cosmology, etc.
We enhanced [[Fritz Zwicky]] in 2 months from a stub. formerly nowhere found, to a now top found article in MNS and ALTAVISTA searching ("our") WIKIPEDIA article for TIRED LIGHT: second, forth, in Goolge a (anyhow redirected) older WIKI-copy in 14th.
MYSELF:
I am our club’s writer also no more sufficiently perfect in English (with a little help understandable?).
[[Halton Arp]] praised article's content of section TIRED LIGHT's but not the Englisch, [[Assis]] wished us good luck for our (well-known:) desperate fight...
Please apologize our faults and to involve you personally but we mean that [[objectivy]] is your sense.
wfc-k (IP see above) [[User:84.158.210.237|84.158.210.237]] 13:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:Dear sir or madam, I have restored your edit but be aware that this lengthy comment is not appropriate in the least bit for this talk page. Also it seems that your grammar and spelling suffer at certain points. While I do not mean this as an insult, such problems can lead to a misinterpretation of your intent. Please consider moving your comments to a more appropriate venue (like your talk page for instance). Thank you--[[User:Cronholm144|Cronholm]]<sup>[[User talk:Cronholm144|144]]</sup> 14:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:Consider also enlisting a translator and posting at [[WP:PHYS]]. I cannot promise that they will appreciate such a long comment but perhaps you could pare it down to some key points. They certainly would be more well equipped to handle your concern.--[[User:Cronholm144|Cronholm]]<sup>[[User talk:Cronholm144|144]]</sup> 14:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:: You are right, we are Germans as mentioned, my personal English certainly (after too many years) worse than the German language, as [[User:Jimbo Wales]] has learnt (recently?).
As you will see, the matter (I hope understood by clear links) is a rather serious one for WIKIPEDIA.
wfc-k [[User:84.158.253.105|84.158.253.105]] 14:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
| |||