H0riz0n
| Please leave a . |
Comments on edits...posts...etc...
Hi there H0riz0n. Do you think you could add some context to your article on the Southern Shakespeare Festival? Right now it's hard for readers who don't already know about it to understand the article, or appreciate its importance. Thanks! - squibix(talk) 14:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Squibix for the nudge, be patient... I added more info and will be adding more and more over time... pic, articles, media, etc. Think of it as a life project... seeing that I am the founder and former executive producer who now has retired to Japan :p
Hi. Saw that you added your thoughts after the AfD was closed by an admin and archived. I've reverted that change as it is probably best not to add to discussion after the discussion has been marked closed and the "Please do not modify" tag was added. Hope that helps! Happy editing!... Should you wish to reply I will watch this page for a while, you can do so here. ++Lar: t/c 05:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks... I didnt realize until posting it that I was "locked" and was too lasy to do anything about it. IT seems a bit silly though if its locked by an "admin" why not just lock the page so we dont waiste time posting and commenting like this ... H0riz0n
Re: God
Signatures
You can quickly and easily leave a signature on your talk page posts by putting four "~" marks (~~~~) at the end of your post. This is expanded to give your username and a datestamp. I'm cleaning up Talk:Big Bang to solve this and other problems. Please hold off editing it for 15 minutes while I do so (the last three times I tried you'd changed it, requiring me to redo another 10 minutes of nit-picky editing). Thank you for your contributions, though. --Christopher Thomas 06:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- H0riz0n: Ooops my appologies... I like the biginning approach, personally. But ok.
- The datestamp is useful because it makes it easy to sort out what content can be archived, and what is still active. This gets done a lot, especially for active pages like Talk:Big Bang. Having the signature at the end makes things consistent with other posts; if mixed styles are used, it's hard to pick out who wrote what.
- I've finished fixing signatures (yours weren't the only ones, don't worry). Happy editing. --Christopher Thomas 06:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:OR caution.
Hello there and welcome to Wikipedia! Please refrain from posting your own research/opinions/philosophy to Wikipedia. This is not allowed. Please remember that all contributions must be verifiable and cite reliable sources, or they can be deleted. Cheers, Sandstein 16:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hello, H0riz0n. Maybe I haven't been clear enough? If so, I am sorry, so I will elaborate. I am referring specifically to some of your recent additions including Distributive Unconsciousness, Quantum philosophy and Quantum mechanical laws, which appear to be (or appeared to have been) largely original research. I'd like to know why you saw fit to reproduce the above message verbatim on my talk page. Thank you. Sandstein 04:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- You may want to do some research before making dumb remarks such as: quantum philosophers/philosophy and Quantum Mechanical Laws as being my original ideas. Distributed Unconsciousness is my original idea, as it has more evidence than Jung’s collective unconsciousness idea. H0riz0n
This article was deleted as original research in 2005 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harmonics Theory (2nd nomination)). Please do not recreate deleted content. --Christopher Thomas 17:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- H0riz0n: Oh, My bad... I liked what you did and just thought it deserved posting. Ill recreate something "new" simple and be sure not to "recreate deleted content." I do hope you mean that I cant "use" deleted content vs. I can't re-post a new form. I will try to do something minimal. But I think given all the info out there and the fact that more than two 501c3 nonprofit organizations are citing him and his work means he should be listed in wikipedia.
- Let me make the situation clearer: Unless you have a lot of new external references that weren't cited the last time around, that clearly show that this is a notable subject, the page can't be recreated in any form. Also, be advised that you really shouldn't take claims of funding and popularity on a pseudoscience's web page very seriously. Instead, do web searches for mentions of it by people who aren't the pseudoscience's authors. In the meantime, I'm putting another "speedy deletion" tag on the article, before it raises flags with watching admins.
- I realize you're just trying to contribute, but the right way to appeal the deletion of an article is to submit an application for Wikipedia:Deletion review. Please also read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Undeletion policy for additional information. It's very important to go through the proper channels, as otherwise an administrator might thing you're deliberately vandalizing. --Christopher Thomas 05:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Please don't get discouraged by any of this, by the way. It's great that you're an enthusiastic contributor. It's just that you accidentally stepped on a bit of a policy landmine, so I'm trying to steer you away from it as quickly as possible. Happy editing! --Christopher Thomas 05:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- H0riz0n: I understand your position. Thank you for clarifying things. As I mentioned I care little about Harmonic Theory--i thought you did a good job editing it. However it's sad that cycle theory suffers because of pure ignorance of the topic as a whole and it is to be banned because it is "lightly" connected to HT. It's actually funny. I guess this brings light to a major limitation to wikipedia's in ability to stay up with the latest thoughts and discoveries being contemplated and discussed... It's basically, controlled knowledge base by what I call "Wiki Control Groups" because any editor/administrator in reality anything "research" and or psydoscience and bring the hammer down on it with their possy control clan.
- Actually, you seem to be greatly overestimating both the legitimacy and the importance of "cycle theory". I and several others have tried to explain this to you on the AfD page. The way to find out if something is science is to look for bona fide scholarly publications on it that are not presented on the web sites of the people touting the theories in question. All that turned up was unrelated links, newsgroup posts by CRI, and links in UFO conspiracy sites and the like. Nothing at universities, or any other evidence for the "taught at every university and receiving millions of dollars in funding" statements that you'd made. Rather than assuming a cabal or control group, consider the possibility that the objections being made are valid.--Christopher Thomas 04:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Do you think hedge funds would be touting their theories on websites? Get real. Obviously you arnt a business major or you would have rememebered studying it in business school--and since EVERY university has a business school ergo one can say it is taught in Every university. Did you take macro ecomonics? Did you skip the day they coverered it? I have listed enough evidence to prove both the legitimacy and the importance of "cycle theory". Also, have you ever worked for a hedge fund to know what they are spending money on? Do you even know what one is? Do you honestly think that since the 1930s crash millions of dollars HAVENT been spent on finacial cycle theories...?! wake up... The fact is probably 100s of millions have been spent on the subject. You have no idea about finacial markets and the where they spend their money... do you? Your band of wiki content control cronies can do as you wish. I care little about what you do... I have expressed my opinion and shown you the facts.
- I'm afraid all you're doing is continuing to make assertations without providing evidence to back them up. Nothing in business courses refers to the type of "cycles theory" described on the CRI web page or the foundation web page. The term "economic cycles" does occur in textbooks, but it means something other than what you seem to think it means. The mathematics used by hedge funds and other groups to attempt to predict the stock market is quite intricate, but has little to do with cycles. The way it works is to attempt to identify all parameters affecting stock prices, set up a massive set of differential equations showing how these parameters influence each other, and apply various statistical tools to attempt to a) figure out what subtle warning signals occur before a substantial change in stock price, and recognize these signals, and b) perform an sensitivity analysis to see how the system would respond to various types of event (mergers, accounting fraud, an oil refinery burning down, or what-have-you), and using human assessments of the likelihood of these events, derive a prediction of the behavior of the stock market for scenarios expected to occur. This type of system works better than blindly guessing, but is far from perfect, especially given that it has to cope with competing players in the stock market using similar systems (and so behaving in a complicated and difficult-to-model manner). Yes, I _do_ know what I'm talking about, thanks. --Christopher Thomas 23:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Cycle theory, The Foundation for the Study of Cycles, Cycles Research Institute, and Unified Theory of Cycles
These articles all seem to be derived from Ray Tomes' web pages. Please be advised that most of his attempts at adding "cycles theory" to Wikipedia were reverted or deleted back in 2005. His theories don't have a significant number of supporters, and so tend to be considered "non-notable". I'm putting Articles for Deletion flags on the articles as a result. Unlike the "speedy deletion" flag, this doesn't mean the articles will instantly be deleted, or deleted at all - it opens up a page where users can vote for or against deletion, and present evidence to support their cases. I encourage you to present evidence and arguments on these pages, since you seem to feel that the articles have merit.
However, please bear in mind the "pseudoscience" statements I made above. Lots of people have epiphanies and think they understand how the universe works. The true test is whether or not they can test their ideas, and whether or not the test results prove them correct. Most people don't understand how to do this, or even why it's needed. Take any claims made by proponents of radical theories, including claims that they're widely supported, with a very large grain of salt, and look for independent references to them for less biased information.--Christopher Thomas 05:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
When you're adding material to an AfD page, use:
Comment - (stuff goes here) --~~~~
Please _don't_ annotate other peoples' comments, or the original AfD text itself.
Also, _please_ use the "preview" button when checking what your edit will look like. Only hit "submit" when you're _done_. This makes the history cleaner, and keeps me from having to make my edits three times after getting an edit conflict each time I try to commit (one edit conflict should be the most that occurs with two editors). --Christopher Thomas 07:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Quantum mysticism was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 23:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Quantum mysticism move error
Hello, I noticed (via tawkerbot2) that you recently moved/renamed a page. However, I believe you have made a mistake in the process of doing this, as you seem to have done a cut/paste instead of using the move option on the top of the page. The problem with this is that it doesn't maintain the history, which is required for copyright reasons. WP:MOVE has infomration on this topic, but I would suggest that the easiest way to fix this is to
- revert the redirect on the original article (which is incoreect anyway, and doesn't apply to the talk page)
- mark the two current target pages for speedy deletion (CSD G6/G7)
- Once these have been removed, use the "move" option on the top of the page to "rename" the article correctly. This will
- Maintain the history
- Create the correct redirects on the original article and talk page.
Regards, MartinRe 23:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- No worries, it's just better to sort it out before other people edit it, or else it gets very complex to fix the historys! Any problems, drop a line at the admins notticeboard, there's plenty of admins there that would be willing to help get it in order. G'night. MartinRe 23:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've merged the histories of Quantum mysticism and Quantum metaphysics, so it's all set. In the future, please use "move" to move or rename a page, instead of pasting the contents into a new article. FreplySpang (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Quantum mysticism
Dear Horizon - I disagree with your recent changes to the article formerly named Quantum Mysticism. You must understand that the intentions of this article are subtly different from where you are taking it. The article is intended as a comment on the SOCIAL phenomenon of quantum mysticism, rather than a metaphysical exegesis on the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics. This is why I believe 'metaphysics' is the incorrect term to use in the title here - the article is talking about mystics who employ quantum mechanics to support their theses, not about the theses themselves. I'm not sure how to change the title back, but I'm going to give it a go, and also revert the article to its previous form. You seem to have many venues in which to discuss your interest in the field; I hope you'll allow the article to remain in the state in which it was originally intended. Adambrowne666 11:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- With all respect... I am taking it to where it belongs out of ignorance. The term is metaphyics... the study of defining the ultimate reality. Its an area of phyolosophy defined my plato and has been in existence for more than 3000 yrs. However, mysticism is a recent invention and is used as a means to obfuscate the thue meaning of metaphysics. Also you may want to to read the mission of wiki... dont post if you have a people changing and or adding to your ideas... H0riz0n
James Hansen
Please consult Wikipedia:Cleanup resources: "If you don't have time to do anything more than tag an article as needing cleanup, that's fine and a very useful thing to do.". —Viriditas | Talk 11:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- For some it seems that all they have time to do.... you got to love the high horse! lol H0riz0n