User talk:Isambard Kingdom

This user may have left Wikipedia. Isambard Kingdom has not edited Wikipedia since 14 April 2017. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archives

Archive 1

I will make my contributions less explicit following the advice of Anachronist.--Jahurtado (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment here publicly and declare any conflicts of interest you have re: UFOs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.92.173 (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, I have no conflicts regarding UFOs. Thanks for asking, though. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A true Christian believes the word as gospel; one cannot truly claim to be a Christian if a distinction is made between a historical and biblical Jesus. Ledboots (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion, of course, but other Christians interpret the Bible in a more figurative sense, often believing that it has a higher level of meaning than just historical. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i answered in this page about deleting sand picture article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sand_picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 868,383,950edits (talk • contribs) 20:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Hello again, I deleted links to shopping pages, and added new links. please check the article sand picture.868,383,950edits (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Isambard Kingdom, I see from the history of the 'List of quantum-mechanical systems with analytical solutions' page that you removed my reference on the 'quantum harmonic oscillator with an applied linear field'. Furthermore, you seem to have removed the same addition I made to the 'Quantum harmonic oscillator' page. Please tell me why you did this so I can improve my additions to these pages. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Hodgson (talk • contribs) 16:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI, WP:NotHere, WP:SPA, WP:Notability. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Isambard Kingdom, I have read through the pages you have linked me here; I respectfully disagree that any of these are a valid reason to delete my contribution. First, I do not have conflict of interest (COI). Even though the reference I gave is to my own work, this is not conflict of interest for the following reason. According to Wikipedia, COI involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself. My addition to Wikipedia is not about myself, it is about a new solution to the Schrödinger equation. Second, I am trying to contribute in the most respectful and tasteful way I can to the list of solutions to the Schrödinger equation. So, how am I 'clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia'? From what I can tell, I added a summery of new information to the relevant existing page. If the summary is not brief enough, or violates Wikipedia policy in a more specific way, I would be happy to change my contribution in accordance with their rules. Third, my account is new; everyone has to start somewhere, so, of course, my account looks single-purpose. How is one to start contributing if their first contribution is not allowed because it is single-purpose? Finally, the reference I have used is made available to the public in some form, and by a third-party with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Hence, as far as I can tell, it is a valid reference. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Hodgson (talk • contribs) 16:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are not an objective judge of your own work, and your work is not yet highly cited by others. This makes it non-notable. I suggest you start editing articles to which you are not personally attached. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. I see your point. However, I argue that I do not need to be an objective judge of my work as it is peer-reviewed and backed by a respectful university. My contribution is simply another solution to add to the list of known solutions to the Schrödinger equation. Hence, if the reference used is valid and the list wishes to be as complete as possible, why should it not be added? I don't see why a certain solution should be missed out of a list of known solutions when it is simply considered less notable because it has fewer citations associated with it than other references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Hodgson (talk • contribs) 17:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not about documenting everything in all detail. I have restored the citation to your thesis, but I suggest you try to contribute more holistically. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring the reference. Yes, you're right about the detail, hence why I aimed to summarise the solutions on the SHO page (I admit when I first attempted I did not). I feel that I managed to do this for my contribution to the QHO page based on (I think) your feedback and other Wikipedia moderators. I would like at some point, if I may, to add the full solutions to, perhaps, the existing QHO page. I am, of course, conscious that the SHO is a very big subject in quantum mechanics and hence it must be done scrupulously. Of course, I welcome any suggestions you may have on the best way to proceed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Hodgson (talk • contribs) 17:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How many times does it need to be said? You should avoid self-serving edits. I find your persistence to be embarrassing. Please work on something else and help us build an encyclopedia. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link I removed inserted the following text, which was definitely religious: "The God given timeline is 6000 years ago beginning from the creation of Adam and Eve. This is also known as the short age world. Scientist try to disprove God by talking about evolution and that the earth history dated back as far as 4 billion years. In Genesis chapter one and two of the bible it clearly states that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days. How can evolution even be possible beginning from a single atom. Where did this one atom came from. They say that the earth was extremely dense and hot stating it must have a beginning. Time must start somewhere. The only answer is that God is the beginning and source of all life and everything in the universe whether animate or inanimate, whether principalities or powers."

The meta-text that caused this to appear was "

Nature timeline
This box: view talk edit
−13 — – −12 — – −11 — – −10 — – −9 — – −8 — – −7 — – −6 — – −5 — – −4 — – −3 — – −2 — – −1 — – 0 —	Dark Ages Reionization Matter-dominated era Accelerated expansion Water on Earth Single-celled life Photosynthesis Multicellular life Vertebrates	← Earliest Universe ← Earliest stars ← Earliest galaxy ← Earliest quasar / black hole ← Omega Centauri ← Andromeda Galaxy ← Milky Way spirals ← NGC 188 star cluster ← Alpha Centauri ← Earth / Solar System ← Earliest known life ← Earliest oxygen ← Atmospheric oxygen ← Sexual reproduction ← Earliest fungi ← Earliest animals / plants ← Cambrian explosion ← Earliest mammals ← Earliest apes / humans L i f e
(billion years ago)

". Once I removed that, the offending text above disappeared. I can't explain it.

Coordinatezero (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the religious text there now. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Isambard Kingdom and Coordinatezero: BRIEF Followup - Seems "User:Delano Mullings", a "WP:SPA" new editor, added the religious text to the "Template:Nature timeline" - the "Template:Nature timeline" has since been corrected by an IP User => 2001:14ba:21e6:c200:1c5d:2772:3851:bad6 - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On an edit, you said said the Gregorian calendar is not in use for the dates of the article. I would ask what calendar are we using for this article? You also said "not a christian documents", which has no relevance to the discussion edit. Please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD7A:B080:B134:5510:922F:85E8 (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why the edit removal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B02A:12B4:4DDF:3F65:3743:EDF9 (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't sea an actual source for the citation to "Sproul", but I see that you've now added one. As for introducing the notion of Christian worship of Yahweh to the lead of this article, a couple things: 1. There is no discussion of this in the main body of the article, and leads normally function as a summary of the main body, 2. Yahweh was a Jewish god (Israel and Judah) long before he might have been a Christian god, so I would think the order of your text should put Christianity at the end. More generally, I'll be interested to see what other editors of Yahweh think about your proposed additions. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is it you wish to talk about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.247.101.139 (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crosleybendix: As I said [1], if you can you supply a draft paragraph that specifically addresses your concerns and which has citations to reliable sources, that would certainly help, otherwise we will continue to go in circles. So, for example, you seem to believe that fields (electric, gravitational, etc.) are not physical quantities, but, rather, just a bookkeeping tool. Is there a reliable source that makes such a description? Note that Feynman defines fields in physics as "physical quantities", and he also discusses how they can be used to calculate forces. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 08:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mind if I set the caption to:

"The Blue Marble" photograph of Earth,
taken by the Apollo 17 lunar mission

? A2soup (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@A2soup, no, go ahead. This is a classic picture. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks! A2soup (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to be interested planet images, what do you think about my suggestion concerning Uranus? This isn't as clear a case as with that terrible Earth image, so I would feel more confident with input from someone else knowledgable about the issue. A2soup (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@A2soup, I note that the Uranus image you want to use has been an Picture of the Day. In its extreme simplicity, it is actually beautiful! At the same time, I know that an editor can sometimes get kind of emotionally attached to a picture, especially if they were the one who put the picture into an article. For this reason, if you choose to replace the lead image, maybe you can move it down into the interior of the article. Just a thought. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Isambard Kingdom, I updated the banner image on the Earth article, as you noticed. I think it gives better clarity than the historically superior but technically inferior blue marble image from 1972. The newer image captured by Elektro-L also includes 80% of the world's population. Is the article attempting to convey NASA's historical achievements or is it attempting to display the most up-to-date and accurate information? Your perspective would be much appreciated. BDS2006 (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Isambard Kingdom, I understand your reasoning for reverting the image back to the 1972 Apollo 17 image. I could, however, use the same reasoning to justify the newer image as it, too, is a natural photograph of the Earth that happens to be technically superior. Lacking any further justification for maintaining the Apollo 17 image, the existing discussions on this topic appear to be NASA-centric and do not represent a worldwide view of the issue. Furthermore, Archive 14 (which predates the Elektro-L image in question), far from reaching a "consensus" contained almost no discussion at all on this topic. We need to consider all options and not just NASA images if the community is to reach an unbiased and well-informed decision on this matter. Thank you. BDS2006 (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BDS2006, if you feel strongly about all of this, then I suggest you take it to the talk page for Earth. My experience, however, is that people tend to take a wide variety of strongly held opinions on this sort of thing, and, in the end, I think you might possibly spend more time on the issue than it is actually worth. I suggest concentrating on text and content. But that is just my opinion. Sincerely, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Although I have no opinion on the substance of the debate, since there are other eds besides the two of you it is definitely an issue for article talk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Isambard Kingdom, thank you for the suggestion. I will follow your advice and start a new discussion on the Earth talk page. @NewsAndEventsGuy, I agree that more multilateral input is needed to reach an unbiased and globally inclusive decision on this issue. BDS2006 (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Isambard Kingdom, there is now an active discussion about the banner image on the Earth talk page, thanks to your advice. I believe the Wikipedia community would value your input. Thank you again for inviting discussion on this topic! --BDS2006 (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your careful look at Global warming. We'll likely disagree sometimes, but if you can talk about it, I'm happy to find out when I'm wrong. Go for it! See you at the talk page or edit summaries. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NewsAndEventsGuy, If we improve the article (though it is already very nice), then the benefit will be mutual. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This re-revert was done without any "discussion" as contemplated by the WP:BRD process. That makes it the opening salvo in an edit war. Please use the talk page to form a WP:CONSENSUS. Apparently that sentence needs improvement, and so far neither of us have the right answer, since we're both unhappy. Discuss please? At the article talk page though, not here. Others may want to participate. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't want Wikipedia:Deletion_review, you want WP:AFD. It can be pretty tedious, though. After a while I learnt that an equivalent redirect - say, redirecting the article to Khabibullo Abdusamatov - is less trouble. I've tried that, now William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

== It's a hypothesis, and I can be tested true, and case-wise tested false. The 'unscientific tag' is a value judgement and not cited. Respected scientists like Carl Sagan have stated it's possible.

In your recent edit, I think this would be the proper capitalization in an article that is otherwise using "Universe" as the name of our universe: "As such the conditional probability of observing a universe that is fine-tuned to support intelligent life is 1. This observation is known as the anthropic principle and is particularly relevant if the creation of the Universe was probabilistic or if multiple universes with a variety of properties exist (see below)." (Capital U the second time, since that reference is to our specific universe, not a generic universe.) I'm not going to make a "universe" -> "Universe" change since I've gotten into enough fights about it, but if you agree that that's consistent with the rest of the article, you might consider self-reverting that one. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 23:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashill, I made the suggested change. No problem. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you delete about my killer wales news and earthquake relation paragraph is irresponsible. 1. The Japan times and Sankei Shimbun are main stream. I even listed the wiki reference. Forgive me, I would think you might define only CNN, BBC or any english only media as "main Stream" which is kind of biased. They both are well-known in media world. You can google the name before you quickly defined that a not main stream media. 2. This is the lastest news and "observation-artical of conversation-earthquake this morning", those 3 steps are very well related. 3. Until now the official relation between animal behavior and earthquake is not well established. I agree there could be an alternative way to put this paragraph under class of "possible case". But this latest phenomenon and consequence listed in Wiki is a good and easy way for someone to dig into and find the potential relation or a proof/theory of no-relation. Either way, just by deleting that based on saing no value because no main stream under your personal definition of mainstream is biased. Have you ever click the ref link i gave for each sentence i wrote?

Without strong valid theory, non animal prediction case could stand on wiki page under your criteria then. Again. my purpose to list that here because a significant phenomenon related to animal prediction could drive more scholar to dig into either support or object by proof. This is just a description. Easily remove any potential cases under that items won't help to develop animal prediction part at all.

Moreover, I know in academic field, people like to/prefer to cite from academic journal or IEEE or Science or Papers. It makes the academic wiki-page looks more authentic and convincing. Well, usually, authors from those journal also make conclusion based on their experiment or original observation plus theory support. I never said i listed that and made a conclusion that this is the a proved case of animal behavior towards earthquake. I listed this case as significant phenomena and "possible case" under this item as an description. There is no summary or conclusion made that this is the proof and case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summitguy (talk • contribs) 16:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you give me a more valid reason for deleting it or please undo it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summitguy (talk • contribs) 16:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Summitguy: Well, I'm only the second editor to remove this material on whales and earthquake prediction. If you feel strongly about this, I suggest you take it to the Talk page at Earthquake Prediction. You would probably get some useful feedback that way. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided are not of sufficient quality to show that the observations was treated as a prediction of today's earthquake, so I've reverted it again - please take it to the talk page if you disagree. Mikenorton (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mikenorton, I just replied on your talk page, please check — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summitguy (talk • contribs) 17:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify the difference between a "measurement" and an "estimate", an analogy: a radar gun measures speed with the prior assumption that the Doppler shift of the radar signal is due to the motion of the object it's bounced against. So even though you strictly measure the wavelength of the radio beam that the radar's receiver measures (which in turn is really measuring changes in current over time and assuming that they are due to variations in the electromagnetic field which we call the frequency), it's normally called a measurement. Similarly, we measure the location of the peaks in the cosmic microwave background power spectrum as well as the redshift of Type Ia supernovae as a function of brightness (which is calibrated to a distance by other observations). Once you have those measurements and the prior of the lambda-CDM model, there is no further free parameter: you get one number out for the age. So that's why it's generally considered a measurement. The prior that lambda-CDM is correct is not quite as well-established as the prior that our understanding of electricity and magnetism is correct (though lambda-CDM sure predicts a ton of observations very well), so it's good practice to bother to mention explicitly that the prior exists, but I think that changing the wording from "measurement" to "estimate" actually indicates uncertainty that isn't there. Remember that the quoted uncertainty (13.798 ± 0.037 billion years) already includes a systematic contribution, which accounts for several things including an estimate of the probability that the underlying model is wrong. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 18:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashill: Well, as long as there is an additional assumption, and especially if there is a probability model, then those assumptions plus the data add up to an "inference". Admittedly, scientists tend to think of their measurements as representing a model that they often think is reality. This over confidence can lead to problems, unless we take a more modest stance on our perceptions. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "if there is a probability model"? Every measurement involves a set of assumptions and a probability model (often called an uncertainty). It is excellent practice for scientists (and everyone else!) to be explicit about the assumptions and the probability model they're using instead of brushing it under the rug. That's the main thing that's going on here. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 19:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and I'm looking under the rug. I believe that you are talking about would be an "inference" in most settings. I suggested using the word "estimate" as a soft compromise. Something with an error bar can reasonably be called an "estimate". Note, however, that I haven't undone your reverting of my edit, as I'm not actually seeking an argument. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that by stating the assumptions before referring to the measurement, the article leads the readers under the rug much more helpfully than a weasel word like "inferred" (which suggests that there isn't a compelling reason to believe the quoted number). By that standard, there's no such thing as a measurement, since every measurement has an error bar (whether quantified and stated or not). That usage would also be entirely inconsistent with usage of the word measurement in science. I too don't mean to be arguing; just wanted to explain where I was coming from in a revert that may not have been obvious. In the Universe article, we could just drop the whole bit about the context and say "The age of the Universe is inferred to be 13.798 billion years", but I think that misses crucial context.

There was a clause in the lede about scientists using measurements to infer stuff about the Universe; that was removed by another editor today. It seems from this discussion like it should go back in. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 19:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And my edit used the word "estimate" not "inference", as I've explained. I was using that as a compromise of these issues. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I also think that "estimate" is a weasel word in this context for the reasons stated above. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 19:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And from what you describe, what we actually have is an "estimate", an accurate one, sure, as expressed by the "error bars". Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then I really think you misunderstand the meaning of the words estimate and measurement. If I stand up against a wall with a tape measure, I find that my height is 183 ± 1 cm. Is that an estimate because there's an error bar? And if I'm less honest and just report 183 cm, does that make it a measurement? Similarly, would it be a measurement if we just called it 13.798 billion years? (Of course not.) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, probably good to avoid "don't understand" expressions. Not helpful. I'm expressing my understanding of what is done. The age of the universe, as I understand it, is not directly measured. Instead data, of several types, you can explain them to me, are used to make what I am calling an "estimate" of "age". I'm just trying to be honest about what I know, honest about what we write in the article. I will say that I think I know quite a bit about "inference". Just saying. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to say that something that has an uncertainty is an estimate, not a measurement. If I interpret what you said correctly, it is frankly true that you misunderstand the use of the words. If I misunderstood your statement, I apologize. To my understanding, estimation generally implies incomplete information or a rough calculation. The measurement of the age of the Universe with the prior of the Lambda-CDM model has neither; there are no free parameters (ie the information is complete) and the uncertainty of <0.3% is hardly a rough calculation.

(If this discussion seems contentious, again, I apologize. I don't mean it that way and it is leading me to think more critically about what is meant by measurement, so thank you for your edit that brought it up and the discussion. I certainly don't mean that you misunderstand simply by claiming that estimate is the right word here; that's a reasonable statement that I just disagree with. My strong disagreement is with the statement that a quoted uncertainty implies an estimate, not a measurement.) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Age of the universe uses, in my opinion an inconsistent set of terms, which I think might be "fixed": "measurement", for example, but I won't argue about it. Still, in that article the uncertainties and the assumptions (which it is acknowledged might not be true) are discussed. Data with errors plus assumptions, only inferences can be made from those. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of Bayesian analysis on that page uses terms that are flat wrong. Bayesian analysis is about parameter estimation of "inference", not about estimating measurement error. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that an often-used distinction is "measurements" vs "derived parameters". In this terminology, the age of the Universe is a derived parameter. But definitely not an estimate. An estimate, essentially by definition, cannot have an uncertainty, since the very word estimate means that there are unquantified assumptions or unquantified unknowns which preclude a quantified uncertainty. I think the age of the Universe article does a pretty good job going through what is directly measured and what is calculated/derived from those measurements. In particular, the "assumption of strong priors" section is much of the basis of my arguments in this discussion. Maybe Universe could have some of that detail, but I think leaving it mostly to the specific article is better.

Bayesian analysis is one of the best tools for estimating measurement error (see particularly the earlier Planck and WMAP papers; the later ones don't bother to repeat it), so I don't know what you mean by saying it's not used for that. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 23:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume strong priors are treated as if they have no uncertainty (no errors), even though it is understood that they are actually only as accurate as the assumptions motivating their use. Of course, that uncertainty is usually real, and "strong" does not necessarily mean "correct", and my reading of the age of the universe article seems to confirm this. Also, measurements, in normal usage, are certainly not parameters, parameters are the model. Again, in normal usage, Bayesian analysis has input as data (measurements) and priors (expressed with some degree of confidence) about what the parameters might be; from this, one makes an (output) inference about model parameters in light of the data available. In this type of analysis, parameters are treated as statistical, but they are certainly not data - they are not measurements either. And, almost finally, I have never heard anyone say that an "estimate" has no uncertainty. And finally, whether or not an error estimate is large or small depends on how the estimate is to be use. In some respects the estimated age of the universe is accurate. Good. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, "inference" is what scientist often do with "measurements", so not inconsistent as you suggest. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised the section in the Universe article to describe the details of how the age is measured a bit more (which I certainly think is merited; there's no doubt that there are a lot of relevant details hidden by either the word "measurement" or "estimate"). I think/hope this is better than arguing further about which word is better. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 15:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as you have removed my edit for "estimate", while I have not undone your edit, I don't feel like I'm arguing. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing would have been a better word. But I was referring to myself more than you. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 15:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Isambard, I wasn't disagreeing with you when I reverted your edit in statistical significance. It was just that those were two separate issues (more power vs appropriate use of test) that were not mutually exclusive. In light of your edit, I added a clarification on the use of a one-tailed over a two-tailed test, supported by a reference. Hope that clarifies it. danielkueh (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! So I was recently voting on an Articles for Deletion discussion you had also voted in, and I noticed that you had previously blanked the page under discussion. To quote the notice that's on the article, [f]eel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. I really appreciate your contributions to Articles for Deletion, and it would be great in the future if you didn't blank pages that are up for deletion. Thank you! APerson (talk!) 18:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@APerson, I understand. My actions may not have been in the right order, and maybe even not in order. If so, I apologize. So you know, I opened the talk page for the article Vortex Science, and I suggested that the article be deleted. I also blanked the page. My actions were part of a back and forth with the author of this page (Derenek), and a couple other editors (not just me) who were removing odd content contributed by Derenek. After all of this, the page was officially put up for deletion (after the page had already been blanked). I did not, myself, put the page up for deletion, as I was unfamiliar with the procedure. Of course, I also understand where you coming from, and in the future I will act differently. Sincerely, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Poloidal–toroidal decomposition page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits on Universe. Just a note: the correct way to express the cleanup tags (and all templates) is with "{{"; you've been using "{". Eg {{clarify}}^{[clarification needed]} or {{citationneeded}}^{[citation needed]}. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 10:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You recently blanked the "Bennett and the Hyparchic Future" section on the Omega Point page with the edit summary "An entire section copied from a book is removed." I would like to point you to Wikipedia's copyright policy. It reads: "Wikipedia articles may also include quotations, images, or other media under the U.S. Copyright law "fair use" doctrine in accordance with our guidelines for non-free content. In Wikipedia, such "fair use" material should be identified as from an external source by an appropriate method (on the image description page, or history page, as appropriate; quotations should be denoted with quotation marks or block quotation in accordance with Wikipedia's manual of style)." The section you blanked properly identified the external source of the text, and all the text was included in a block quotation. This is exactly what Wikipedia policy calls for, so I restored the section. I would recommend that if you ever intend to blank a section like this again, you should instead use the {{copypaste}} template to prevent yourself from wrongfully blanking a section. Abierma3 (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. He is perfectly right in this instance. Either explain the point of view and reference it, or the quote will justifiably be deleted. I.e Where is the confirmation of the actual quote here? None of what you say here Abierma3 is relevant to the deletion. and presumed copyrighted material is also irrelevant. Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arianewiki1: The quote was properly introduced as a critical view of what the article is about, and the quote was referenced. This means that the quote's relevance was explained. I agree the copyright policy is irrelevant, so your only complaint is the quote is too long? Why even include the block quote in manual of style if the policy is to automatically delete quotes for being too long? If you look over the entire article, it is not dominated by quotes. WP:QUOTEFARM says,"Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit." Perhaps the quote would be better paraphrased, but this doesn't mean the section should be blanked in the meantime. Take your issues to the talk page and ask editors to paraphrase it if that is your grievance. Abierma3 (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point you to the Manual of Style since you have been deleting links in a See Also section and wrongly stating in the edit summary that links are required to have direct relevance and be mentioned in the article. From MOS:SEEALSO: "The links in the 'See also' section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics... The 'See also' section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links) nor to disambiguation pages (unless used for further disambiguation in a disambiguation page). As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Notice that it says the links "might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." To decide which links deserve inclusion or not, the MoS says that it is "ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." Now keep in mind that Wikipedia operates based on consensus, not on Isambard Kingdom's opinion. So for links that you want removed, this needs to be discussed and removed only if consensus is reached to do so. I just wanted to inform you so that you do not keep deleting See Also links on other pages without proper justification. Abierma3 (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

are you able to respect and accept other people's edit sometimes? Buckbill10 (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have we met in a previous life? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Odain Howell (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dark energy is a very important thing in our universe. It is an article that deserves to be well-illustrated and stuff. The image in the lead is just there to cause a good impression on the readers. Most people will just read the lead, and it is important to me that an illustration be on top. What do you think? It won't cost anything Buckbill10 (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This sound familiar. Have we met in a previous life? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. I will add the lead image there. There is nothing wrong with it Buckbill10 (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect block avoidance. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave the image there. It makes the article more welcoming to the reader. Buckbill10 (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've said this to Ashill, but here it goes again. Mind to stop caring so much about details? Unfortunately this is a free encyclopedia and you have to deal with other people's opinions sometimes. Undo an edit only if it really necessary (for example, when a wrong information was added). If not, don't bother too much about details. It is necessary to accept other people's edits sometimes. Cheers. Buckbill10 (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd totally ignore Buckbill10 here. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that sentence is confusing, but you added a non-existent template name that caused a red link in the main article; I fixed it. However, it would help if you added the "reason=" parameter to the template to assist others in resolving the issue. Mathglot (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. One thing about that template, its language seems to imply that the whole article is confusing. Really, it is just that one messy sentence. So, I was looking for a way to label that one sentence. Still, I know the wikieditors will get it when they see the template attached, in the source code, to that sentence. As for "why" it is such a confusing sentence, it is extremely convoluted. Although I think that is obvious, I will try to put the reason= parameter in. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^{[clarification needed (convoluted structure)]}

I've visited your namesake's museum in London. Are you in any way related? LouScheffer (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Extraterrestrial life, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Humanity. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fermi paradox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Modulations. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Transhumanism page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Isambard Kingdom,

I noticed your recent reversion of my edit on the SETI article. Since I made these edits in response to the tag you posted about the excess level of detail, it'd be good to have a discussion about how you think the page could best be improved. Drop in on the SETI talk page where I made the original post relating to these proposed edits a few days ago, and let me know what you think about what I suggested and if you have any other ideas. Nren4237 (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your motivation, but the "section" on history in the SETI article is only part of the material on history, which is actually dispersed across many sections of the article. As for the article having too much detail, there is lots of detailed stuff about how many channels are being searched, the exact specification of radio dish diameters, and odd anecdotes, etc. etc., much of which doesn't really contribute to the concepts that need to be brought forward in the article. So, I'm not in favor of dividing off parts of the article. I am in favor of giving the article a working over. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cleaning so many articles I happen to follow. As Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, I often am shy to delete entries that seem out of place nd borderline fringe. I perceive most of your edits quite sober. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I have seemed rather...eccentric in my life articles. I sometimes have a hard time telling fringe from legitimate in certain scenarios. I had not realized Mysterious Universe was fringe. However, there are certain levels of fringe.

1. Completely and entirely fringe - Outright rejecting scientific fact, no basis in reality. Examples include Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories, Roswell UFO theories, Bigfoot Hunting.

2. Some basis in fact - Attempts to stick to scientific fact, but the science either does not or cannot back them up. Examples include Evidence of God and ghost/paranormal subjects.

3. Relies on reputable sources, or is itself reputable - Is a legitimate, well-meaning effort, but due to being in a gray area of science, their attempts are typically drowned out or the majority has a different viewpoint, where both could be valid but the evidence points to the majority. Examples include anthropologists such as Geoffrey Krantz's investigations into Bigfoot, possibility that Viking did detect life, and UFO sightings by reputable sources such as astronauts, law enforcement officials, Air Force pilots, etc.

If/when I do unintentionally include fringe sources, it's typically from type 3 - due to being sometimes indistinguishable from non-fringe content in some cases. I apologize if I have seemed like I am a fringe theorist, and if my efforts to create various Life articles have been an annoyance. However, I feel that any cases where life is possible or has been hypothesized, it is worthy of its own article, even a stub. Europa, Enceladus, Ganymede, and Callisto in particular - those four are MAJOR contenders for life.

Once again, I apologize if my sources have been fringe at times. DN-boards1 (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DN-boards1, we don't need lots of runt articles about speculation of life on all these moons, Europa, Enceladus, Ganymede, and Callisto, when the issue of life between these moons are (at current levels of understanding) fairly similar, namely, brine water with interesting chemistry and source of heat. Beyond that we don't know much about "life" on these moons. I suggest that you consult with experienced editors with knowledge on this subject, editors like @BatteryIncluded, for example. Perhaps a single article that consolidate all of the life-possibilities about all these moon into one article, just a suggestion. But right now, lots of separate articles that are only a few sentences long are not useful, and they are likely to be deleted. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You have added an AfD tag but not started the linked discussion. Please do so straight away, providing the reasons why you think this should be deleted. --Mirokado (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirokado, Understood, and immediately after inserting the AfD on Al-Idrisi Montes‎, my screen gave me information about what to do. I contacted Savonneux at talk:Savonneux asking for a bit of guidance, since I've not navigated the AfD procedure before, and since he/she requested a similar AfD for a related article. I haven't heard back from Savonneux just yet (no pressure from me). In an effort to be responsive, I will, for now, take the AfD tag off. Alternatively, perhaps you would support deletion yourself? Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that response. I have never requested a deletion as far as I remember, but I have just posted on the creator's talk page "encouraging" him to stop creating any more similar articles for now. The relevant pages are Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Deletion process and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. I normally look through such pages before attempting to use a new process (in my case moving and merging for example). It may be that Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion would be a good place to ask for any clarification. --Mirokado (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up on this, I see that you have posted to some of the deletion discussions, but the contributions are not votes and the closer does not count votes, he weighs the arguments pro and con that have been presented. So just saying "delete" (or "keep") will be ignored. --Mirokado (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If I could, I wanna ask why shouldn't we add Organisms template to Life article? It includes internal link to "Life" article and is used in Eukarya etc. articles. Thank you. TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TaurenMoonlighting, I'm sorry, it looks like I removed the wrong thing. I will revert my own edit. Thank you, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. :) Thank you for good collaboration and have a nice day! Greetings. TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Solar dynamo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Faraday's law. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I see that you tried to ping me and several other editors at Talk:Sun#Lead and other images. Just saying @Ashill doesn't do anything, so I didn't see the comment until I happened upon Talk:Sun for other reasons; you have to use either {{u|Ashill}} or {{reply to|Ashill}} to generate a notification. See the template documentation and WP:PING for documentation. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashill, okay, thank you. I'm trying to encourage some *informed* involvement with Sun. It is an important article, and while I've tried to improve it, it still needs lots of work. One of several issues that might attract popular involvement is images. I've put in a white-light picture of the Sun in the lead. Some people don't like this because it doesn't look exciting enough, but I've suggested that the white-light image is kind of analogous to the visual true-color images we have for the planets of our Solar System. More generally, I'd like to see some images of the Sun taken simultaneously, but at different wavelengths so that people can see how similar features show up when viewed in different light, so sunspots look different in white-light, from UV, from X-ray, etc. Such a sort of comparison mini-gallery would, I think, satisfy an expectation that there be some visually interesting representation of the Sun. Then, after that, I'm reasonably certain that an astronomer familiar with stellar physics could help us with the written content, and it is written content that is important and needing attention, I think, in this article. Some other editors have been working on the article recently, some of it good, but read between those lines. I'm prepared to move away from the article, so that is why I tried to send around an invite to other technically minded editors. Thanks, and everything, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Yes, this ping worked). Honestly, Sun has looked like a quite good article to me in the past, from my memory, and it's a featured article, so at least a number of editors in 2006 and 2009 (when reviewed) thought it was excellent. So maybe I'll take a look, but I don't think it would be a high priority for me unless it looks bad on closer inspection. Thanks for asking, though. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashill, okay, understood. By the way, I'm having some difficult exchanges with an editor over at Escape velocity. He keeps erasing the content of his talk page, but I see from View History, that you've corresponded with him before. ;-( Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've had issues with that editor before (including just now on Sun). His/her edits tend to be just constructive enough so that reverting them wholesale is not fair, but the edits tend to do more harm than good and take much more time to clean up than vandalism, unfortunately. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph in question reads:

Turing wanted to provide a clear and understandable example to aid in the discussion of the philosophy of artificial intelligence.[87] John McCarthy observes that the philosophy of AI is "unlikely to have any more effect on the practice of AI research than philosophy of science generally has on the practice of science."[88]

The second sentence, which is quite a general comment, is only relevant at all if the first sentence is suitable. The reference for the first sentence is Turing's well known 1950 paper. The author of the first sentence appears to know exactly what Turing wanted, that being (according to the author) not to introduce an actual test but rather to 'aid in the discussion of the philosophy of AI'. Turing himself said nothing of the kind in this paper, in his presentations or in discussions. This is pure conjecture on the part of the author.

Hence it was removed. Bradka (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradka: In the reference to the first sentence, in [87], Turing says that he wants to consider the question "Can machines think?". In the Wiki article linked in the first sentence under question, the philosophy of artificial intelligence is described as being concerned with "Can a machine act intelligently?" and "Can it solve any problem that a person would solve by thinking?". These two points, one by Turing and one in the linked Wiki article, seem very similar to me. I don't see a problem. The sentence that quotes John McCarthy, while perhaps not directly related to the first sentence, is an accurate representation of what is said in the reference [88]. Again, I don't see a problem. In light of these observations, I don't understand why you want to remove this material. Perhaps you can explain this in more detail? Thank you, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the tense (observed rather than observes) I don't have an issue with John's statement. But it is only relevant to the article if the first sentence is there. The first sentence is implying that the Turing test is irrelevant (this is the section heading) because Turing merely wanted to stir up philosophical discussion. This is not what Turing said at all. Turing did not state what he wanted in this case. It is pure conjecture and should not be there. If the sentence actually started "I believe that what Turing wanted ...." then it would be accurate but should be removed as a POV. The point is here that the author of this sentence (whoever it was) cannot know what Turing wanted and in particular that when introducing the test he was just doing it as a philosophical exercise. If they have evidence that this is what Turing wanted then that should be cited - but it is certainly not in his 1950 paper. Bradka (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradka:, in circumstances like this, I think the best thing to do is fix the text and retain the citations to source material. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You undid my edit at Genesis Flood Narrative. What is wrong with it? I redid it, only to be accused of disruptive editing by another user. So I want to ask you why you undid my edit. I did delete important information. The details are discussed in the section "Comparative mythology". What then was wrong? You can leave an answer at my talk page.--68.100.116.118 (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.116.118 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The real target is here: [2] Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Life on Venus is indeed likely, and is closer to reality than you think, for a few reasons:

• It's hypothesized to exist in the clouds. Earth bacteria is known to exist in clouds as well, so it's not unheard of.
• There are unexplained amounts of sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid, as in they should not be in the same place.
• There is an unusual deficiency of carbon monoxide.
• The activity of solely Maat Mons is not enough to explain the levels of carbonyl sulfide.

Essentially, Life on Venus is closer to reality than you're saying. The chances are good, not quite as good as Mars, Europa, or Titan - but still good. DN-boards1 (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DN-boards1: Of all the currently proposed missions to Venus, not one mentions astrobiology as an objective or goal. Think about that and stop your fantasy/OR campaign. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BatteryIncluded: I'm pretty certain VSTAR or whatever it is - one of those Disovery Pogram missions - has astrobiology as a goal.

And it's not "fringe" any more than Titan is. @Double sharp: agrees that the page stays. It's two for, two against. The compromise is to keep it in the template. Why are you so belittling of me as a whole? DN-boards1 (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are a bull in a china shop, and because vehemently refuse to quote reliable references to your OR, which you acknowledge is fringe POv. Because you go for the extreme BS and quote it as a gospel of science, and because I care for Wikipedia's standards I feel a responsibility to cleanup after your trolling campaign. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DN-boards1 mentioned his source for Venus as being Venus Revealed (presumably the book by David Grinspoon), after some pushing. I don't know for sure if this is reliable, but given the WP article on the author, it does not look bad. I don't know if anyone else thinks this, but it's gone close enough for me to decide to leave the judgement to someone who knows more about Venus. Double sharp (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grinspoon's book might be considered to be a reliable source for "life on Venus". My concern, however, is the disproportionate (and unbalanced) focus DN-boards1 is making for inserting speculative stuff about extraterrestrial life into Wiki. One needs to ask whether we need it when so many other aspects of Wiki need attention. And, indeed, many of the edits of DN-boards1 need to be fixed, the language made more accurate, citations need to be added etc. It becomes a burden for other editors who actually want to bring up the level of content in Wiki. On a more specific point, some of his/her recent back-and-forth edits on templates are clearly edit warring. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Higgs boson. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 23.233.86.86 (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Introduction to gauge theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you because the story is seminal climate science fiction written by a scientist, coming just a few years after Rachel Carter's Silent Spring, and because— well, isn't it just highly likely that, as our so-called leaders ignore this problem and ignore the scientists, and as the extinctions and pressure builds, one or a few scientists will try something like this in the hope of saving at least some of the life on Earth?

I agree it doesn't fit in neatly with what is there already, but surely there must be a place for this famous story in either the pages themselves or in new pages on fiction depicting these topics. Which I'd like you to make in that case because I have no idea how. :) Kaecyy (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaecyy: I came here anticipating to support Isambard Kingdom with whatever he says to you about your recent links. But having got here first, I will lead off (begging his/her pardon).

Your desire to find "a place for this famous story" is the wrong rationale. Links (like other material) are added to an article on the basis of what they bring to the article, not to enhance the exposure of the linked material. That a story is famous might be sufficient reason to have an article on it, but promotion is not allowed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. The fame of the story was an offhand comment, not the rationale, which you ignored. The rationale is the story's high relevance to the topics, and its early, seminal nature on the topics. Kaecyy (talk) 05:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaecyy , There is relatively little material on The Last Flight of Dr. Ain at James Tiptree, Jr.. Why don't you address that there? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keycyy: what high relevance to the topics? Or early, seminal nature"? To take just one topic: I see no evidence at all that this story has had any relevance or effect (seminal or otherwise) on the phenomenon of global warming, the study of same, possible remediation, or the ensuing public discussion. That the story has an interesting insight on any of this is certainly something that can be covered in connection with the story. But in regard of these other topics there is not indication of any relevance. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you, by chance happen to use WP:IRC? If so, what is your nick? It would make communication much faster and easier for us. Thanks! --DN-boards1 (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone them all, as there appears to be a lack of consensus. But you might want to take a look at Mesopotamian mythology, which has been moved to Ancient Mesopotamian religion. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 08:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm investigating these things. Point being, religion and mythology are not always the same thing. So moving categories needs to be done on a careful, case-by-case basis. Thank you, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree - I'm not the one who moved it. I let it be for a few days, but nobody appeared to object to the change; I saw nothing when I did my searching prior to moving articles. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 08:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain what is the confusion you refer to, related to the initiation of the currents that would be amplified by the geodynamo?^[1] I believe your edit was unwarranted. Thank you. 98.217.158.136 (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well that research paper you cite, here on my talk page, is fine, albeit overly technical for Wikipedia. What I deleted from the article on the Earth's magnetic field was not good material. Let me summarize the situation with planetary dynamos. These are (almost always) rotating and electrically conducting fluids that are thermally unstable. Convection is the fluid motion that results from that instability, with a minuscule "seed" perturbation leading to growing fluid motion and the transport of heat. Rotation constrains the fluid pattern of convection, with the Coriolis force essentially reducing motional freedom. But, in response to this constraint, another instability sneaks in, with the electrically conducting fluid amplifying a minuscule "seed" magnetic field. Fluid motion acts by induction to amplify this tiny field, with the Lorentz force partially offsetting the restrictive Coriolis force. In this respect, the magnetic field actually facilitates convection. The field grows and grows until the Lorentz force approximately equals the Coriolis force, at which point the field attains a rough maximum strength, and with convection efficiently moving heat from the planetary interior. That, in a nutshell, is planetary dynamo theory. I imagine, however, that you might be wondering where the seed motion and seed magnetic fields come from. Well, it doesn't take much to send an unstable physical system into time dependence, and, indeed, all of this discussion is idealized. In fact, the pre-motional pre-dynamo state probably never really existed in the first place. Planetary and stellar evolution is far more complicated and messy than our simple models. And, then, finally, it is worth recognizing that simple self-sustaining dynamo systems can be built in a laboratory, although the simplest such dynamos are not fluid-mechanical, but, rather, consist of cleverly connected solid conductors that move relative to each other. They are, in some respects, just fancy versions of electric generators. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your summary, however you vaguely address the issues I presented, adding your own theory instead, by saying that an “instability sneaks in, with the electrically conducting fluid amplifying a minuscule ‘seed’ magnetic field” arising from your “it doesn't take much to send an unstable physical system into time dependence”. None of what you say contradicts or invalidates what I wrote in the article. There is a big difference though: I am presenting referenced research material (Dr. Livermore’s) as opposed to your original research. Furthermore, the article as it is, takes for granted the existence of the electric currents without addressing where, or how, or why they started, restarted, and the nature of the mysterious “minuscule ‘seed’ magnetic field”. I don’t want to speculate about it. The research is out there, and it is worth bringing it into the article to clarify what I consider an important omission. This makes what you deleted from the article to be better material than its absence. Remember that you can move a conductor all you want and not generate any current, until you immerse it into a magnetic field for example. And the dynamo then starts working. This may not be obvious to all readers. I request that you leave what I wrote in the article, and invite you to improve it, instead of just eliminating it. Thank you. 98.217.158.136 (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then go ahead and reintroduce your material, then. But you do need to recognize two important issues: 1. for dynamo theory it is the "self-sustaining" quality that is important, not the original seed field. and 2. the dynamics are important (you are talking about "kinematics" only), and my summary is about both of these. Please recognize that this is my talk page, where giving a standard summary is not "original research" of concern, per se, since I'm not introducing this material to an article. Indeed, even if I did put this material into an article, it would be relatively straightforward to cite significant sources to back it up. I just don't have time to do that right now. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a section at Talk:Earth's magnetic field# Earth's core and the geodynamo on this subject. That is where a discussion on content should be located. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to join me in requesting permanent semi-protection for the page? It's been semi-protected several times, but that protection keeps expiring, bringing the origin problem right back. Let me know here or on my talk page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: Yes, sure, I would support that. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the request.MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hai. Thanks for helping — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milku3459 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the subsection "Approximations" removed? Is there a problem citing your won work if it is the only work? or is it the language of citing it? Please explain. (Abdurrahman.Ala.Abu.Alkheir) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdurrahman.Ala.Abu.Alkheir (talk • contribs) 18:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to express my sincere appreciation towards your efforts on solving problems that earth is facing. I'm disappointed seeing people continue destroying the earth yet they know the effects of their actions. They are putting money before the lives of other people. They are selfish and only have greedy intentions. If there is any way you can adress this please do so. If this persists I'll do my best to get a ticket to another planet. Good day... McCartney's (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terradactyl (talk • contribs) 04:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am creating a page on my userspace's sandbox to discuss the creation of an RfC and its wording to settle the dispute filed at the DR/N here, since there seemed to be 3 out 4 (5?) editors that agreed to using an RfC to settle the contested changes. The draft page can be found at User:Drcrazy102/sandbox/Draft_RfC_for_Earth_System_Science. Please do not comment on the RfC on this talkpage, comment on the Discussion section on the Sandbox page. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That revert left some very poor English. Doug Weller (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller: Do you think the second edit of Haim Shah at Abrahamic religions should have been reverted? I'm just trying not to perpetually undo things I don't like, and, so, defer to other editors (at times). Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His first change replaced poor English with more poor English, the next two I proposed the English. Doug Weller (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for 'Saved21', there is a King James Only movement and LDS and JW followers insist on the KJV. Doug Weller (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can my edit possibly introduce inconsistency? The period should be outside the parenthesis, it's a simple rule and everyone knows it. Cheers, Huritisho 15:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are some sentences in the article that end in a period, followed by a citation number, followed by a parenthesis. Unless Wiki has a particular style, the ordering of periods and parentheses is not necessarily the simple rule that you know. See, for example: [3]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That link you put in the edit summary says exactly what I did. Look: If any sentence includes material that is enclosed in square or round brackets, it still must end—with a period, or a question or exclamation mark—after those brackets. When you reverted me, you added the period inside the bracket. It is pretty obvious that the period goes after the bracket, unless the text in the brackets ends with "etc.". In this case, the period inside is necessary. Huritisho 17:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOS says, literally, "However, if the entire sentence is within brackets, the closing punctuation falls within the brackets. (This sentence is an example.)" Seems pretty clear. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm let me check again Huritisho 17:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that seems to be correct. It looks extremely weird to me, but if that's what the MoS says... what can I do. Huritisho 17:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can self-revert your edit. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I did that already Cheers, Huritisho 18:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huritisho was another TetraQuark sock puppet: [4]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also: [5].

The new user HalloweenNight emits similar vibes with less trolling. It may be him too. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New investigation: of user:Incendiary Iconoclasm as a possible sock of Tetra quark: [6]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible pair of incarnations: User_talk:Not_a_creative_person and Special:Contributions/187.107.0.247. Just monitoring things, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I am am very tired and very sloppy. The reference exists but I'm not going to do any more editing today. I'll give you the info. If you wish you are welcome to include it yourself under Radius in the inbox

Bye..--Rudy235 (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Limb fits using full-disk images, combined in a joint solution, give a mean radius for Pluto of 1187 ± 4 km (5), at the larger end of a previously uncertain range of 1150 to 1200 km (6). No oblateness has been detected (5), yielding a conservative upper limit on Pluto’s polar flattening (a difference of <12 km between equatorial and polar axes) of 1%. We conclude from this that Pluto does not record significant shape evidence of an early, high-spin period after Pluto-Charon binary formation (7), presumably because it was warm and deformable during or after tidal spindown.

Under Pluto Geology and imaging

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6258/aad1815.full 

I do value the "thank you"s (and thank you for that one, by the way), but I also wish every once in a while that there was a "buy me icecream" button around here. François Robere (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

François Robere, you deserve an icecream! I appreciate your politeness despite ... well ... everything. I also admire your ability to succinctly summarize issues in writing. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Isambard Kingdom (or should that, based on your recent diligent hunting, now Sherlock or Super Sleuth?).

I have a feeling that TQ may have returned as the possible sockpuppet GavinSlavin, whose very first edit poses the question "Is there any way where the universe does not end?" at Talk:Ultimate fate of the universe at 04:04, 10 November 2015. His Wikipedia registration was at 17:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC), being a day or so after Outedexits demise at 08:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Oddly, UY Scuti happen to welcome this user to 16:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [7], which is somehow before GavinSlavin became active? Notably, the question edit was dated as 03:36, 10 November 2015‎? [8] These dates should be the same, and not appearing before it? (Forewarning?)[reply]

I do think this is possibly another TQ incarnation, because it would be very odd to pose only one very specific cosmological question [9], then do nothing else. (This a subject TQ is quote interested in, whose unlike probability in timing couldn't be a coincidence, and it also happen to be one very recently edited by you.

Just thought you might be interested. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was summoned and so, I'll clear it up. That was not a coincidence. See here. That should speak on behalf of me, I guess. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 06:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The SETI never finds ET signals, why stress it on this stars page for your own agenda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapsfly (talk • contribs) 15:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at KIC 8462852 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon, Okay, I reverted twice. As did you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above notice was an error. I notified the wrong person. Reverting twice is perfectly reasonable behavior. I apoligize for the error. Sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, Guy Macon, and thank you. I don't like to revert, but, in this case, I did it to restore simple, factual material on a subject of some interest and (to some) controversy. Have a good day. ;-) Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this IP user 65.175.246.43 seems also obsessed with moons and planets' hydrostatic equilibrium as Horrifico/DN-boards was. Do you think it is worth our time starting a block-evation investigation? I have no idea of the scientific accuracy of his edits though. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BatteryIncluded, I noticed this too. Looks like DN-boards1, whom I recall admits to being a serial sock puppet. There are several editors, like JorisvS and Kheider, who know a lot about moons and other planetary objects. If 65.175.246.43 becomes a problem, I think they will notice. For now, I will just be observant. Still, I appreciate your involvement and attention to Wikipedia. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DN-boards1 sock puppet: [10]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isambard Kingdom didn't care for a comment I posted on a disagreement between us on a topic to which he admitted not being an expert. He retaliated by tracking down pages I edit and marking them for bias and lack of citations. In looking through this page, I notice that I'm not the first editor he has attempted to intimidate like this. I'm not taking action, but am placing this here for the record. I hope that this concludes the matter. Wikiant (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiant is referring to the article Antony Davies, which he, himself, described as his biography: [11]. It is an article that he both created: [12] and for which he is the greatest contributor: [13]. This appears to me to be contrary to the following guidelines on conflict of interest: WPCOISELF. Wikiant is also referring to the Paragon Software, which has no citations at all to any reliable source. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to it as "my biography page" as in, "I created it" - something you can readily verify. If you are claiming that I am the person in the article, then you are knowingly attempting to violate Wikipedia's outing policy. In short, your behavior in this instance (and from reading the rest of your user talk page, many other instances) constitutes harassment. I suggest you find a way to cooperate better with your fellow editors. I said above that I had hoped that this matter was concluded. Keep revisiting the issue and I'll report you for harassment. Wikiant (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to interrupt such a beautiful heart-to-heart here, but Wikiant, Isambard Kingdom isn't "outing" you if you put up a comment that reads (and I quote you Wikiant):

PS: I notice that you are now commenting on my biography page. Yes, the page does rely heavily on articles written by the subject. That's what one would expect from a biography page is it not?

You have said "my biography page" which is easily misconstrued as you meaning that it is your actual, personal biography page, not a biography page you are writing about someone else. Also, WP:OUTING says, and I quote:

Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia ... If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia; although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing. If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing. ^{(emphasis added)}

So the question is now, "Have you (Wikiant) redacted - in any way, shape or form - the comment posted? Or is it merely a misunderstanding of an ambiguous statement?" If you have redacted in any way, then it is outing; if you haven't or you have clarified that you meant a biography-article on another person, then it is not outing but misunderstanding. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to interrupt. This is not a guns-blazing situation. Isambard and I had a disagreement about the definition of "economics" on the economics page. Next thing I know, he believes he has discovered who I am, and is accusing me of conflict of interest and lack of citations on unrelated pages. This clearly isn't innocent editing. Isambard is harassing. Wikiant (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, in regards to the "discovered who I am" problem (which relates to WP:COISELF), is it possible that your comment could be misconstrued as meaning it is your actual bio-page Wikiant? If it is possible, then it would be best to assume a less nefarious intention behind the alleged "outing" (which hasn't happened by Wiki-standards), and the WP:COISELF comment is based on the interpretation of the comment.

As for the "lack of citations" tagging ... well ... are the lines tagged missing, or in need of, citations? If they are, then it is hardly nefarious but can be based on an editor wanting to improve Wiki (though they could have an ulterior motive of distraction). Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my comment could be misconstrued. I deleted the conflict of interest warning and noted that he had no evidence of such. Isambard then reverted. Bottom line, I'm happy to chalk this up to a misunderstanding, but he needs to remove the COI warning. Wikiant (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)