User talk:Anville: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:45, 6 October 2006 editAnville (talk \| contribs)6,887 edits →New Scientist ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 17:07, 25 August 2024 edit undoB-bot (talk \| contribs)Bots532,848 edits Notification that File:Attack-of-the-smart-pies.jpg is orphaned and will be deleted in seven days per WP:CSD#F5
(89 intermediate revisions by 41 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			<center>
	]
			''You're wrong. I'm right.''
	'''Remodeling a home.''' Mine, as it happens. I will try to be prompt in replying to all queries on this page, but sadly, I won't be able to begin Big New Projects for a while longer. My replies will probably be posted here, since I like to keep conversations as collected as possible. ] 19:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

			''And that won't change, not even if we fight!''

			—], "Tell Your Friends (Part Deux)"
			</center>

			{{Boxboxtop\|Anville}}
			{{User trystero}}
			<div style="float: left; border:solid Black 1px; margin: 1px;">
			{\| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: white;"
			\| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: white; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5\|{{{id-s\|14}}}}}}pt; color:#FFFFFF;" \|''']'''
			\| style="font-size: {{{info-s\|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: black ;" \| <center>'''This user is on indefinite Wiki-sabbatical{{{1\|}}}.'''</center>
			\|}</div>
			{{Boxboxbottom}}

	<!--Template:Archivebox begins-->		<!--Template:Archivebox begins-->
Line 12:		Line 26:
	* ]		* ]
	* ]		* ]
			* ]
	\|}<!--Template:Archivebox ends-->		\|}<!--Template:Archivebox ends-->

			==]==
	== Saved thoughts on quantum theory ==
			Hello,

	:''Copied from ]:''
	The opinion of the mainstream scientific community (''i.e.,'' just about everybody except ]) holds that quantum theory is '''irrelevant''' for understanding the mechanisms of consciousness, except in a trivial and uninformative sense. Consciousness is due to something going on in the brain (something we understand only a fraction of, yet). The brain is made out of molecules whose properties are ultimately determined by quantum mechanics, but once you understand those properties, you can take them as given and reason on the larger scale without the apparatus of quantum theory. If this implies that "conscioiusness is quantum", then anything you pick is quantum. ''Building a skyscraper'' becomes a quantum act, because it depends upon the properties of ], which depend upon ]s forming a ], which you can only truly understand with quantum theory, etc. If the brain is quantum in the same sense as the ], then the assertion linking quantum theory and consciousness has no content.

	No other way of linking consciousness and quantum physics has worked out, either. Moreover, we've made a great deal of progress studying the brain in ''classical'' ways.

	Physicists have even tested the idea that QM plays a role in neural processes. With just a few equations, you can clear away the woo and see what Nature ''really'' can be doing. Guess what? The biological structures of the brain, even the organelles inside neurons, are just too big, too warm and too noisy for QM to play a large-scale role. To quote ] of ], who actually did calculations on this matter,

	:One of the motivations for models with quantum coherence in the brain was the so-called binding problem. In the words of James , "the only realities are the separate molecules, or at most cells. Their aggregation into a 'brain' is a ﬁction of popular speech". James' concern, shared by many after him, was that consciousness did not seem to be spatially localized to any one small part of the brain, yet sub jectively feels like a coherent entity. Because of this, Stapp and many others have appealed to quantum coherence, arguing that this could make consciousness a holistic eﬀect involving the brain as a whole.

	:However, non-local degrees of freedom can be important even in classical physics, For instance, oscillations in a guitar string are local in Fourier space, not in real space, so in this case the "binding problem" can be solved by a simple change of variables. As ] remarked , when observing the ocean we perceive the moving waves as ob jects in their own right because they display a certain permanence, even though the water itself is only bobbing up and down. Similarly, thoughts are presumably highly non-local excitation patterns in the neural network of our brain, except of a non-linear and much more complex nature. In short, this author feels that there is no binding problem.

	Claiming that consciousness is weird, quantum mechanics is weird and the two weirdnesses must be one and the same — which is all these so-called "parallels" boil down to — is horribly shoddy thinking.

	] 17:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
	:Don't spend to much time refuting articles like this. It isn't very effective. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

	::I know, I know. It's just that I haven't spent much time refuting this particular fallacy, and it's nice to set my words down. They may come in handy later in some higher-profile arena, or I might revise them into a larger essay. ] 17:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

	== Re: Removal of notice from Admin noticeboard ==

	The user's contribution did not appear to be a simple case of removing an Afd tag; rather, it included what appeared on first blush to be valid changes. If so, that is not a case of simple vandalism, and the first step should be to work toward an agreement. Happy editing! :) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]\|]\|])</small></tt> 18:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

	:Cool. Thanks for the rapid response. (I didn't notice the article in dispute until today, and I will have forgotten about it the day after tomorrow, so it's hardly any skin off my teeth.) Cheers! ] 18:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

	== New Pynchon Novel ==
	Hi— I'll leave it to you to tidy up the stuff you added from the "blurb" which went up on Amazon. I think you jumped the gun in attributing it definitively to Pynchon, though it's a possibility that it's an accurate precis, and I guess it's also possible that he wrote it himself. It probably would have been better to couch it as a rumour until the dust settles a bit. best wishes— ] 00:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

	:OK. I'll tweak it a little (I meant to get back to that today, but the day job intervened). Thanks for the note and happy editing. ] 03:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

	==]==
	Hi, Anville. I'm sorry to make myself disagreeable. :-( But I'm having some thoughts of listing '']'' for featured article review at ]. I hadn't realized before that Raul did promote it back in June 2005. A bit surprisingly, I think--I mean, based on a discussion with three pretty thin Support comments and two very meaty Opposes (from Jun-Dai and me). It's also noticeable that nobody supported any more after Jun-Dai and I said our say. You didn't reply to our comments at the time. Do you completely disagree with the criticisms? Because I still feel they were substantial, and the article doesn't seem to have changed much in response to them. ] \| ] 12:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC).

	:I haven't really looked at the article in a good long while, and I'm sure it's deteriorated from whatever peak it managed to reach (the way that FAs always seem to do). I have a vague recollection of finding additional sources and writing new paragraphs of word-stuff to address objections raised during its FAC go-around, and I suppose what I did must have satisfied the FA Director — but my standards have risen too in the intervening months, and I myself might not think my additions were enough if I had to look them over again today.

	:Unfortunately, I don't have time to work on big and important things right now. Go ahead and put it on FAR — best to get more voices in the discussion, particularly if some of them belong to people who have the chance to make improvements. ] 14:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

	Well, it looks like Raul actually featured it pretty quickly after I commented. I think he simply disagreed with the objections and liked the page as it was. OK, I'll FAR it and see how other people feel. Do you think I should leave a note on ] for a while first? If it's basically your work, I reckon that's an unnecessary detour; but if there are other main contributors, perhaps Talk would draw them in more effectively than FAR. ] \| ] 22:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC).

	:The work I did (during, before and a little after FAC) has been overlaid by lots of other contributions. At the very least, I'm sure the article needs a grammar tune-up and probably a cruft purge. I think putting a note on the Talk page — for maybe a week or so — before going to FAR is a good idea, since other people have added things more recently than I and are likely still hanging around. ] 14:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
	::Well, I did put a note on ] and got a resounding nothing so far. It's now, with a linked template on Talk:The Giver. The FAR system is evolving and may be different from when you last checked in, as it was for me: I discovered that they don't recommend waiting before listing an article any more, but instead keep it for a two-stage review for at least a month. I think I've done what I can to help interested editors find and hopefully contribute to the review, though of course people aren't necessarily reading wikipedia every day in July—August. ] \| ] 15:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC).

	:::Thank you. I must admit that I've grown much more pessimistic about the Misplaced Pages since I was when I first started pushing things to FA; however, I balanced this (if ''balance'' is the word) by growing more sanguine about how much it matters. Best wishes, ] 16:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

	== ï ==

	I'm sorry, I have to ask. What was the purpose of that "ï" in the CTMU's thingummy? It seems to have disturbed Tim Smith a bit though - he edited it out. Random mayhem? A subtle program in psychological warfare? ] 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	:Misplaced from "naïve", it appears. Useful diacritic, the trema, though not well-known to the orthographical laïty. ] 21:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

	::"A subtle program in psychological warfare?" Oh, sirrah, you give me too much credit. (-: ] 14:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

	== Against the Day ==

	Thanks for the note. The stuff you've added to the new novel's page looks good to me, and the in-line citations are fine. I'm dubious about the Cronin novel being a source for the title; there's also a non-fiction book which might be relevant http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0807845574/104-7500103-6702349?v=glance&n=283155. Cheers ] 23:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

	:Yeah, I've been watching the folks on PYNCHON-L debate the title back and forth (hate it, love it, find allusions in it). Theorizing in the absence of fact can be fun, I guess. ] 14:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

	==Thanks for the help==

	Thank you again for the Sam Spade work on that damnable policy...I go insane trying to search the "meta" part of this site, because the search just doesn't work (I don't know how you found it!). As it turns out, I think there's little point in blocking the guy: he just embarasses himself the way he carries on. I think I've really made him very angry -of course, that was the good thing about him not admitting who he was: people could comment all they liked on Mr Universe without "personally attacking" Asmodeus, who would have had to sit there and see just what the world thought of the "theory" and its inventor (with terms like "pseudo-intellectual gibberish" and "whackjob" flying around). Ah well, c'est la vie. If one wants to preen oneself in public, one cannot expect people not to jeer. Oh - you may have noticed, but I hope you don't mind - I've appropriated your new name for the CTMU, since it deflates the pretentiousness of the concept so well. Cognitive-Theoretic Whizzbang of the Wangdoodle indeed. ] 07:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

	:I don't mind at all. In fact, I'm pleased that I have done my part to start a meme. (-: (I found that policy page via a Google search restricted to en.wikipedia.org, query phrase being something like "personal information", but it wasn't in the first page of hits.) ] 14:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

	I noticed you've been tweaking the RQM article a bit: much appreciated, and any other input you wish to offer as well; not many people seem to be familiar with that particular interpretation, which is a pity, since it is the one I think makes the most sense. Have you read Rovelli's paper on it?

	Anyway, I'm still getting the hang of the formatting for maths symbols here. I am used to LaTeX, of course, but I'm not sure how much of the formatting/"markup" from it can be transferred here. In particular, in the "derivation '''and''' structure" section of the RQM article, there are the two examples of descriptions, with the kets and the arrows and the time labels on top. How do I get the arrows to be directly in line with another (because currently they're a little offset from one another). And can I use the LaTeX "equation" environment to label equations? How? ] 15:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

	:All I know about formatting equations here comes from what I learned by accident and what is written at ]. It looks like you could hack the alignment using Wiki-markup tables or the <code>matrix</code> environment (see ]). I found a brief discussion about labeling equations , but I've had no luck finding anything better. Perhaps the people over at ] have something useful for this, but I haven't seen it.

	:(This touches upon a more general concern of mine. Speaking in broad terms, we Wikipedes haven't done a very good job building a coherent whole out of our coverage of any particular science. We get fragments covering this topic or that with varying degrees of accuracy and comprehensibility, but we can't even keep our choice of variable names consistent. I guess I was hoping our articles on physics could be more like a textbook spread out into 32K chunks.)

	:I've read a little in recent months about interpretations of QM, in preparation for some pop-science writing I have planned. I'll happily contribute what my limited knowledge and time permit, but sadly, these days both of those appear to be in short supply. My own pet QM project is ], which will basically be a conversion of into encyclopedic format. I'd like it eventually to set a standard for technical FAs — "good writing with equations" — but I just haven't had a continguous block of free time to hack it into shape.

	:] 15:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

	:P.S. I tried out the <code>matrix</code> environment on the RQM page. Is that closer to the way you wanted? ] 16:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

	::Much better, indeed. If only there was some way of getting the second "t_1" over the \otimes symbol, but I ''think'' I can live with it where it is :P. And no worries if you're pressed for time...fortunately, free time is something I have lots of until early August, so I want to get RQM done by then, in-between other bits and bobs of miscellaneous scribbling to unencyclopaedic ends. Then I want to flesh out the topos and category theory stuff here. You mention on your userpage that this season's fashion is SUSY...that may be, but I think topoi are next; well, ten years' time, anyway.
	::I agree with what you say about the "fractured" nature of the physics articles - it's what happens when you have a few (dareIsay idiosyncratic) hundred people working on a single "textbook", I guess. But perhaps once it reaches a certain "critical point" with regards to the quantity and "content-quality" of articles included, the focus could shift to standardisation. I shall be watching your supersymmetric hydrogen atom with interest then, as it crystallises into form.
	::Thinking of standardisation, though, a LaTeX2Html macro that includes wiki-structure could work: I'm sure most people writing physics/maths articles would use some form of TeX for writing anyway, so a standard macro to turn TeX into wiki-markup/html could work. Of course, that requires someone being bothered enough to do it. I'd rather copy-paste good quality formatting from elsewhere, personally. ] 17:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

	:::My remark about "the fashion this season" was just a silly way of mentioning what I was working on at the time. There existed a vaguely interrelated web of ideas and math scraps stretching from population genetics to black-hole thermodynamics — not a grand Theory of It All, but rather a set of oddities, where the operator algebra invented in one place turns out to be useful in another. I hope to get back to that stuff in a month or so, because I mostly left it hanging.

	:::I just started reading through Lawvere's ''Conceptual Mathematics'' book, because ]'s website really made me feel the lack of my category-theoretic knowledge. ] 17:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

	::Yes, I was wondering about that Focking equation you mentioned. The concept does sound interesting: can you point out reading matter -or is it thoughts of your own in development? I mean, while obviously there is no "deep" connection between black hole entropy and population genetics, it is nonetheless curious that there is that link...maths is wonderful like that.
	::Funny, I happened on category theory from the "other side", as it were, from formal logic. I absolutely love it: "intuitive" maths, so to speak. I'm working on applying topos stuff to quantum logic -that's my little project at the moment. The "fashion" statement I made was actually an oblique reference to Baez's comment that topos theory is completely ''un''fashionable in physics. But that's alright, 'cos I'm technically in philosophy, where everything except postmodernism is unfashionable, and I don't do postmodernism, although I do transgress boundaries, Sokal be damned.
	::Baez's website is a veritable goldmine of deep trivia, if that makes sense: and I regularly use his crackpot index; when I first read the CTMU "paper" and websites I ranked it a moderate 238, and that was not counting every vacuous statement (I averaged based on the first paragraph). However, the last couple of weeks' events could probably crank it up quite a bit more: comparing one's "persecution" to Galileo earns a bundle of points...I wonder how many to add for the comparison that was made to ]?
	::And I see our dear Asmodeus has taken it upon himself to open up the deletion review on the Whizzbang. After it was closed by an admin, after the full five days have run their course. He opened up two other unrelated debates in the process. I left a comment to that effect ('cos admins get their wires crossed and may overlook the fact that the reviews were all closed). I must confess I don't understand. ] 18:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

	:::I'll go through my notebooks and find pointers to a few papers. With luck, I'll be able to get to that in a couple days. Bleh on having to code software!
	:::I wonder if the sum total that has been written on the Whizzbang in AfD debates, Talk pages and Deletion Review exceeds the length of the mainstream media reportage. Our friendly autohagiographers certainly seem to be aiming for the ], after all. Maybe we should try moving the dispute to a higher court, rather than letting the DRV spool onwards endlessly. . . Do you think this will become a matter for the ArbCom? ] 18:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

	::There are remarkable similarities between the Whizzbang and Bogdanov cosmology: both seem to use the right buzzwords in loosely the right order, but are completely semantically meaningless...it casts even more doubt on the "peer-reviewed" status which the ID crowd are claiming for the rag in which it was published; a fuss needs to made about that at some point, I think, in some other place.
	::As far as the saga here on Misplaced Pages goes, I think a "higher court" might be in order. I'm not sure how any of this stuff works, though: would a RfC or the ArbCom be more appropriate? I cannot see the autohagiographers letting it settle, and it is spiralling and spiralling.
	::Perhaps the best route would be to see what happens with the DRV be closed again by some other hapless admin. If it stays closed, then there's no problem (unless the articles resurrect themselves by magic, which may well happen). If the open/close game carries on, or if the next admin decides to relist it on AfD (which will just spark another cycle), then I think higher powers might be necessary.
	::As it is, I am thinking that some sort of "precedent" should surely come out of this, for cranks editing their own Misplaced Pages articles, posting links to buy their own e-books, and abusing anyone who dares to call their bluff. While they certainly have a flair for theatrics, they turned what could have been a quiet AfD like the Hyperwarp's was into a circus. Jimbo Wales is seemingly concerned about crackpottery on Misplaced Pages, but said that "notable" crackpottery has a place. One has to draw a firm line between notable and non-notable, and it would be good to ascertain properly on which side of that line the Whizzbang falls.
	::And yes, I think what has been written here probably, on word count as well as sheer hard-drive space, far outstrips third-party coverage of the CTMU: which pretty much amounts to a couple of sentences in every article ("Oh! and this genius strongman has a theory of everything too, which has solved everything that has been waiting to be solved since Plato"). ] 19:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

	:::] and I added some language to the proposed ] to address this kind of issue. At the moment, the relevant paragraph reads as follows:

	::::''Any non-mainstream theories should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual. Even a debunking or disparaging reference is adequate, as it establishes the notability of the theory outside of the small group of adherents. References that are brought about because of the notability of a related subject, such as the creator of the theory, and not the theory itself, should be given far less weight when deciding on notability. Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on ], as "News of the Weird" or during "slow news days". (See ], ], ''].'')''

	:::If the Whizzbang ever does die down, I'll be sorely tempted to add it specifically to the Examples section of that proposal. We really do need a guideline like this one ("WP:FT"?); language about autohagiography should be worked in as well.

	:::It looks like the ArbCom typically expects to see evidence that "other steps in dispute resolution have been tried". I believe the ] went nowhere, and given the continuing mess on DRV a jump straight to the ArbCom might not be unreasonable. Assuming otherwise, the next step would be ]; I'm not quite sure whether to file this one under ] or ] (since Langan and Dr. L have indeed repeatedly denied that the Whizzbang was science, when it was convenient to do so). ] 19:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

	::Well, the Whizzbang was published in an Intelligent Design journal; which is a religiously motivated "scientific" enterprise. So the line is blurred everywhere, which is no doubt fantastically convenient for all involved. Except, the journal describes itself thus (emphasis mine):
	:::PCID focuses especially on the theoretical development, empirical application, and philosophical implications of information- and design-theoretic concepts for complex systems. PCID welcomes survey articles, research articles, technical communications, tutorials, commentaries, book and software reviews, educational overviews, and controversial theories. The aim of PCID is to advance the '''science of complexity''' by assessing the degree to which teleology is relevant (or irrelevant) to the origin, development, and operation of complex systems.
	::So, that fact, combined with claims like "Langan has created a theory of cosmic creation that replaces the Big Bang" (from Muscle & Fitness ), "conspansion", "sum over futures" QM, and the vocabulary used in the theory, mean that even if it is philosophy, it falls very much on the ''scientific'' end of the philosophical spectrum, not the religious one. Actually, since Langan claims that his "theory has to be proven like a math theorem", and that he "can reduce that 56 page paper to mathematical formulas", there's a case to be made that it's maths!
	::The problem is that much philosophy is much harder to objectively write off as bollocks than science, on the whole...while I would like to establish, at some point, some "hard borders" for the philosophy/sophistry division, the Whizzbang is too borderline a case to do it. If it ''is'' "philosophy", then so is string theory, category theory, and, Hell, relativity. While that is even a proposition I would argue for, this is hardly the place for such ''Scheinprobleme''.
	::The other concern is that I can see the religion/philosophy category being concerned more with bigotry and extremism than debunking bollocks, while the maths/science would focus on outrageously cranky pseudo-ideas. So merely from the issue of what is being disputed, I think the maths/science one would be more appropriate...but if necessary, it could be moved to the religion/philosophy section, surely?
	::I think the little tweaking on the fringe theories thing is good...and certainly that guideline is a good thing to bring up in any future discussion on this, since it could help crystallise the guideline into a generally acceptable and recognised form; if anything, this saga shows why we need something like that. ] 20:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

	:::Given the choice, I'd file the RfC under math(s)/science, if the affair came to that. (I suspect the hagiographers would dispute the classification either way, just to be tendencious, just because they can. . . .) We should also consider adding a bullet point to the "WP:FT" proposal emphasizing that inventors of fringe theories should not be allowed to use the Misplaced Pages for self-promotion — the notability of crackpot idea X is determined by the scale of its acceptance and of its media coverage, not by how loudly its inventor can scream. Making this point a "rider" on an existing proposal might be more productive than trying to promote a wholly new "Antishilling guideline". ] 21:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

	:::OK, I went ahead and did that. ] 21:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

	==]==

	Hi, Anville, you might be interested in this. ---] 23:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

	:Now '''' is getting really interesting... ] 15:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

	::Thanks for the notifications. I already commented a couple times on the MfD (once to keep, and once to point out a relevant ArbCom proceeding). Just now, I posted a comment any sane person (or anime fan) can recognize as a joke on ]. We'll have to see how ''that'' gets interpreted. ] 15:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

	:::Oh - I hope I haven't ruined your experiment. I just posted a "realisation" of my own...you response gave me a very good idea: I have found in the past that an excellent response to trolling is just to bombard the trolls with surreal madness, since eventually they end up questioning their own sanity, and go away. Unless, of course, they truly are insane, in which case they end up taking the bait and make complete fools of themselves. So we shall see. ] 15:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

	::::I found your "realisation" very good. Yesterday or the day before, I realized that discussion with our autohagiographers was flat-out impossible: they've never edited articles outside the Whizzbang debate circle, they twist policies and guidelines any way they can, and now it appears that they're willing to corrupt external sources in order to have their way. This sort of behavior sickens me. I'm glad that their psychological complexes have given me the chance to inject a little surreal nonsense. While places like MfD should perhaps have some standard of seriousness, I figure User Talk pages are fair game! ] 16:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

	:::::Indeed: what "argumentation" gets raised in the "serious" bits is already quite surreal, without having to add to it...like DrL's "advocate" (who I see is a member of Project Rational Skepticism: I wonder if he knows what he's getting himself into). Ah well, let us see what happens. I cannot believe the depths to which people will sink though, to mirror their own self-image on a bloody open source encyclopaedia. ] 16:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

	== Asimov-related edit needs checking ==

	Hi there. I've recently been reading around the Asimov articles and articles about his books. I then stumbled across a comment you made ]: ''"In two months and odd days, I will be rejoining my personal library, which contains the sort of Asimov collection only a lonely bookworm teenager could have built. I also have the standard reference and criticism works on Asimov, of which I think Joe Patrouch and James Gunn's books would be the most important here."'', so I thought you would be a good person to ask to comment on the edits I made recently to the following two articles: ] and ]. The relevant edit is the one . I was wondering if you would have time to comment and/or tidy this up? Thanks. ] 14:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

	:Hmmm. I actually don't have a copy of ''Before the Golden Age'' with me to check that quote (just to make sure anything equally interesting wasn't accidentally left out!), since I've been bouncing from one physical location to another all summer like a pixel in ]. I will note that I haven't seen that datum elsewhere; for example, ''In Memory Yet Green'' has Asimov giving credit to Eando Binder and his character ]. (I wrote a bit about this in ].) As far as "tidying up" goes, one good thing would be to change that rather long parenthetical citation over to a footnote or some such, using the ]. In fact, why don't I do that right now? ] 14:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

	::Thanks! That looks much better now. I never thought of linking to ''Before the Golden Age'' or the robot names. Amazing the depth Misplaced Pages has in some areas. I have the volumes of Asimov's biography, but haven't had a chance to read them yet. One more thing: the article on ''Before the Golden Age'' says it was later published in 3 paperbacks. Maybe that was in the US, because the UK volumes I have are 1, 3 and 4! Sadly, I'm missing volume 2. ] 09:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


	==Bogdanoff controversy in French==
	I notice your noting that the French article on that matter is poorer than the English, and proposing that somebody translate the English article. I have a few ideas why this has not been done, and is unlikely to (at least, I don't see myself tackling it). a) the French stuff is still already meaty, and organized differently than the English one, so, unless you made an integral translation, and then substituted one article for the other, checking both articles to see what's covered, and what's not would be a Herculean work in and of itself, even before you got to translating the parts absent from one article for inclusion in the other. b) The controversy seems pretty hot on the French side too (if I take the length of the talk page as evidence), so it might not be too bright an idea to violently stir the hornets' nest. But if you have constructive, short term suggestions for porting material between versions, I will look into it, though I am no specialist at all in scientific (or pseudoscience) controversies. I won't dig into it seriously before august 25, though, as I am about to spend 3 weeks away from home. --] 12:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

	:Unfortunately, the time in which you'll be away from home is the time in which I will be busy working, traveling and/or generally being confused. I recognize the Herculean nature of the task involved (a more specific comparision might be to ]); it just seems a pity that the detailed information available on the English side isn't directly accessible on the French, where the controversy began. ] 15:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

	== New Trystero member ==

	Thanks for the kind welcome, and thanks for the information on the Trystero-box - I've added it to my user page. ] 19:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	== re Notices ==

	#Fair point.
	#Of course I don't mind - I'm just ashamed to have made such a basic typographical error. I have to say that my all time most embarrassing mistake was corrected by . cringe --]<sup>(])</sup> 07:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

	:I'm sure I have made ''many'' mistakes of equal or greater embarrassment factor; I just hope nobody notices them! :-/ ] 16:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

	==Sources needed==
	Those citation templates you put on my talk page have categorised it among "articles needing sources" and what-have-you. I think that's blood marvellous, and terrifically appropriate. As it happens, I spent some time rounding up various bits of meta-blab, and put them ], so I have one central place to go to for policy, templates, etc.

	Thanks for posting that info for Advocate Mestel...I also updated Asmodeus' talk page with some context. I don't think I am going to hold back much longer before dishing out some ] of my own. But we shall see... ] 18:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

	:May your incivility be eloquent and forceful, deep with the blood of slaughtered evilfolk! Er, I mean, try to keep yourself under control. (-: At the moment, I've been expanding ] with some juicy content instead of getting important work done. I expect I'll get an angry sockpuppet on my case in a day or two. The fun never stops! ] 18:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

	==]==

	] is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found ]. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. ] 03:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

			An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ].
	:I'll do what I can, but unfortunately, I just don't think I have the time. I lost interest in maintaining that page a few months back, honestly, in favor of doing things closer to my specialty (]). Best wishes, ] 14:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

			On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] 11:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

			== Re: Bogdanov Affair ==

			Your welcome. I found the article from browsing down into ] (a short list, though at least two editors I've edited with have ended up on it lately), so I was really surprised by finding a quality well-ref'd article considering the rathole I'd just crawled through, and even more so after the scary "Give up all hope ye who enter here" ]-like intro-box. I remembered hearing about the affair back in 2002. I figured it was worth a discussion, though cries of "]" were expected. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==

			==Damn it...==
	Hi,

			... I hope you'll come back. ] 01:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
	I read the article again. To make a long story short, it is a good article, but several things can be improved, in particular the first paragraph. Here are some suggestions :
	* ''The Bogdanov Affair is a controversy regarding the merit of '' As fas as I know there was never any controversy about the merit of these papers. The discussions were about its true nature: hoax or appalling bad work. Then they were about what had made this crazy situation possible. I do not know how the rephrase it. I remember someone had written that it was an ''academic scandal'', which seems to me equally incorrect.
	* ''describing what occurred before the Big Bang'' is also a bit misleading, although the brothers use that sort of phrasing in their popular science stuff. ''what occured at the Big Bang'' seems to me better.
	* ''when accusations were made on Usenet newsgroups'' Maybe ''gossip'' or ''rumor'' would be better, since (IMHO) people were somewhat impressed that someone could have succeded in doing such a hoax. Of course the brothers pretend that the rumor was done on purpose, but if you read Baez's first post, he says, in a rather polite way, that it is a hoax. I thonk that if the brothers had been clever enough to say then that it was a hoax, many people would have applauded them. Unfortunately, it seems they were really convinced they had dome some good work (which one may understand considering they work arund 10 years each on this stuff and without pay; at some point you have to convince yourself that the result is worth the price).
	* ''and have raised questions about the strength of the peer-review system that selected the research for publication.'' As far as I know everybody in the physicist community agrees to say the peer review system is not perfect. Maybe a more accurate way to say this would be ''have emphasized that the peer-review system can experience some failures'' (with a better rephrasing).
	* Maybe you could add the PhD date (1999 for G and 2002 for I) in the second paragraph.
	* ''Although there were issues related to the comprehensibility of their theses, they graduated conditionally upon publishing in journals that were respected in their fields.'' As far as I know it was only for I's thesis.
	* I do not like the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph. It is in principle the advisor's responsability to ensure the quality of the student's work. Most people in academia would agree the all these advisors (which were all old men) failed on the crucial issue.
	* ''if Igor could publish three peer-reviewed journal articles'' I think it's two, plus two positive referee reports for the thesis itself. At least this is what his advisor told me. However at the time of the defense, I had 3 accepted papers.
	* ''Max Niedermaier formed the opinion that'' maybe ''reached the conclusion that'' is better.
	* Niedermayer colleague's name is not known to me. As far as I know he never confirmed it was Ted Newman.
	* ''This controversy immediately attracted worldwide attention'' Again, ''controversy'' is not satisfactory.
	* ''which the Bogdanov brothers have continued to deny'' Maybe one should add that they posted in the very first thread (and probably already had some sock puppet supporters).
	* Maybe you should add that Niedermayer "disclaimer" was the first and last public statement he issued about all that.
	* It is not true that the brothers have had 15 thesis reports (this is was they say, of course). They lie in claiming this. G got three positive report for his thesis (from Majid, Gourevitch and Kounnas). I. got two positive reports for his first failed thesis (from Anselmi and Antoniadis), and two others for the successful (...) one (from Morava and Jackiw). They have also presented a number of other documents claiming that they were reports, but it is wrong. They are at best extract from email exchange between I's jury members and D. Sternheimer, insuring that some subsequent improvements of the manuscript had been done (which is true, despite the poor quality of the final version), according to the jury decision after the defense. Among these 7 true reports, two were obviously explicitely dismissed by their authors (I's first thesis referees, Antoniadis and Anselmi, who did not allow him to pass), one more was publicly dismissed (Majid, plus Antoniadis who told this in an interview while Majid posted it in a newsgroup ). Three other referees have been quiet about it (at least in public) : Morava, Gourevitch, Kounnas. The only that remain is Jackiw. There is an interesting story about him. In the ''Ciel & Espace article'', Jackiw criticized the French translation of his report (published in the brothers' book) as ''traduction extrêmement optimiste''. However in some interview he said the thesis was ok (something like ''they were some ideas and some jargon - that's all what I ask''). Now, if you look at the translation, there is nothing bad with it, except that one seemingly unimportant sentence is missing. It says ''I note that in the bibliography, page numbers are missing in many of the referenced articles, or they are inaccurate (e.g. Ref. 9). Also names are mis-spelled (e.g. Ref. 22). This should be fixed''. I must say I do not know whether he was happy to say it was not his report, or if this sentence is crucial (i.e. when he says that the bibliography is incorrect he means that the whole thesis is bad). In any case, he was not very enthusiastic in talking about all that when I contacted him. So... first one should say that it is not 15 but 7, and second that no one (at one possible exception, Jackiw) supported them afterward. Only their advisor did, but again, he had to justify his decision to agree to let them pass (a hardly understable decision, imho). There would be much more to say about Morava's report, but I am not supposed to make this public.
	* In the ''Criticism of the papers'' section, maybe you could add that the CQG paper sums up most of G's thesis, but the paragraph are almost all in reverse orders (which casts some doubts about the coherence length of the paper...). You could add that one inequality are written of both orders (<math>\Gamma \ll H</math> and <math>\Gamma \gg H</math>) depending on which paper you look at, and that three papers are essentially identical (including the typos), except for their title and abstract. These are the Chinese journal of physics, Nuovo Cimento and Annals of physics papers. (Be prepared, however to a sock puppet invasion if you say that ! Sock puppet invasion remain a good test to check for the veracity and the relevance of any statement about the affair, however.)
	* In this section you may also add that some timid support were gooten by the Bogadanovs, but by people who seem to have some very bad opinion about Peter Woit and John Baez, who initiated the public part of the affair. So, according to the well known ''My enemies' enemies are my friend'', I would not assert that Motl, Jadczyk and Poratti have really good opinion about the brothers. Again, one has to be careful saying that.
	* ''both under their real names, and under several pseudonyms; they later acknowledged doing so'' I would strongly support adding a ''partially'' after ''later'' (see the wp page, for example).
	* Maybe you should add that G's unpublished preprint was put on the web very soon after the beginning of the affair, and that it is the result they claim to be the central one of their thesis. However, if you look at G's thesis, no use of this (rather unimportant) result is done throughout the rest of the thesis. This paper was unpublished despite the brothers' claims that it was accepted for publication.
	* You can add ''Le Monde'' among the newspapers that mentioned the affair (it is said soon after).
	* Maybe ''Implications for the peer-review system'' is misleading since the affair revealed many aspects of the peer review system that were already known to scientists. Maybe another word instead of ''implication'' would be better, but I do not see which.
	* ''Questions were also raised in the sci.physics.research newsgroup about the fact that some aspects of theoretical physics have become so abstract, extensively relying on unproven conjectures, that verifying many statements written in published papers has become somewhat impossible.'' It is true, but rather unrelated to the affair, since the brothers lack the basics of any fields in physics. Only their mastering of the jargon is at first a bit impressive, but the rest is rather empty. So, it is true that many unproven conjectures exist here and there, and that there are papers that rely on papers which rely on unporen conjecture, but it is not the problem here. The problem (imho) is that referees and advisors did not do their job. What is not known is how many potential advisors the brathers met before finding one (the answer is: many; I know several of them, actually), and how many papers were sent to journal before some were accepted. The fact that three almost identical papers were published leads me to think that they sent the same paper to many, many journals.

			:Hey, I see you've been contributing! Time to lose the "leaving Misplaced Pages" box? ] 01:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
	OK, so I fear I will be accused of NPOV violation. Maybe one could consider adding some claims more or less defending the Bogdanovs (it is hard to find honest such claims, indeed).
			::Well, most of my "contributions" have been due to finding something by accident and realizing I was more able to fix it than anybody else. (Speaking of which, have you any thoughts on ]?) I still feel more "gone" than "back", and it's not as though my free time is growing without bounds. . . . We'll have to see what 2007 brings. Best wishes, ] 19:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
	* Some people pointed out that the affair started just after the brother came back on TV with their ''Rayons X'' show, so that someone may have wanted to avenge from them.
			:::My first thought about WP:FRINGE was that it was unnecessary and provocative to have it at all, but I'm more positive about it now. I'll have a look. I hope you are pleased at how the the Pseudoscience case turned out. I thought that the ArbCom handled it very wisely and fairly. (I'm not so pleased that MONGO has been desysopped in another recent case, but them's the breaks.) ] 22:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
	* Luc Ferry a French philosopher and very close frind of the brothers (it is said it is thanks to them that he met his wife) was Minister of Education in France during the affair. He wrote an article in French newspaper ''Le Figaro'' saying in substance ''I did not understand anything, but I enjoyed reading their fascinating book''. (Mean people might notice that such behaviour was criticized by Alan Sokal...)
			::::I thought the ArbCom handled the ] and ] in a pretty judicious way. While I have often been frustrated by Misplaced Pages's inability to deal with chronic problems — cruft buildup in Featured Articles, for example — whenever a group of Wikipedians is forced to make a judgment call, it seems to work out well by the time the bits settle. ] 00:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
	* Some physicists, while criticizing the brothers, emphasized that they could help promoting reserch with their shows. Actually, one thesis referee told me that he accepted to be one of the brothers' referee after one of his Swiss post-doc told him he had come into physics thanks the the brothers' show ''Temps X'' he was fond of them when he was a teenager.
	* Daniel Sternheimer told more or less the same thing about the brothers, saying something like ''they are, or better, they were very good "sergents recruteurs" for science''. ("Sergent recruteur" is the name of the people who did lots of efforts to convince young people to join the army.)
	* Université de Bourgogne nor French Reasearch agency did not do any public comment about this.
	That's all for today. There would be much more to say (especially about the last point), but these are things involved people prefer to keep out of sight.

			==]==
	Regards, and good luck,
			As per JzG's recommendation, I've totally reworked the above article as a revamped stub. Please take another look if you like. Thanks ] 20:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
	] 00:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

			==And Chaos==
	:Thank you! This is ''exactly'' the sort of input I was hoping to get. To be honest, I haven't touched the lead to any great extent, since I've found it's always easier to summarize a thing when all the details are in place. However, the rule of thumb for this article seems to be that everything written during the big argument last year has to be ''re''-written.
			Good work on the article. I've changed my vote. If you haven't already, I recommend contacting the original AFD nominator and request he/she withdraw the nomination. Failing that, if the article is deleted it can always be recreated under the correct title format. Do you know the year the book was published? There should be a year category added to the article. ] 17:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

			==Re: AfD==
	:I will try to address the points you've raised. About your last item — it does make me wonder how the institutions with which I've had personal experience (], ]) would have reacted to a mess like this. ] 17:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
			Thanks, for the note about the changes made to the "And Chaos Died" article. I'm '''always''' a proponent of fixing articles rather than deleting them wherever possible, and it looks like some great progress was made. great job! I'm definately going to argue for a keep on the basis of a good cleanup and sourcing.

			Also, just so you know, you seem like you might be interested in some changes I've been mulling over making to ] to give 80's sci/fi (IE the cyberpunk movement) some representation given the sociological themes brought up in seminal works of the genre like "]" and "]". I'm also considering writing some articles for author ]. If you'd like to help or just be kept abreast of any changes just let me know!
	:P.S. I'm currently revising the article at ], and I copied your comments over ] for scratch-work purposes. ] 18:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

			Thanks again, ] 22:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
	==Sally Walker==

			:Those all sound like great things to work on. Unfortunately, I haven't had the time lately to contribute to WP in any major way (and it looks like this situation won't change for the foreseeable future). Still, if you'd like any input — or if you've put something on ] or ] — let me know. E-mails will reach me more surely and rapidly than comments on this page, although I'll try to check both of them frequently.
	Great work on this! ] 23:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

	:~~Thanks!~~ I ~~figured~~ I ~~should~~ do at ~~least~~ ~~''one''~~ ~~good~~ ~~deed~~ ~~that~~ ~~day.~~ ~~(-:~~ ] 15:40, 26 ~~August~~ ~~2006~~ (UTC)		:] is around more often than I am these days and is interested in many of the same topics. ] 22:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

			==Energy: world resources and consumption==
	==Say whaat?!!! ==
			Could you please look at the brand new ] and comment if it is ready to be a featured article? Thank you for your help. <br> ] 13:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

			==Orphaned fair use image (Image:And Chaos Died.jpg)==
	You wrote ''"I thought of a way to implement such a scheme without a 'political seachange' "''. Seriously, I would like to hear that! ---] 22:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
			Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see ]).

			If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on ]. Thank you. This is an automated message from ] 13:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
	:It'll take me a little while to write the thing up. My idea will require time and people, perhaps too much of either, and the original notion stemmed as much from my own vanity as anything else. More tomorrow. ] 00:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

			:For the record, let me state that the image is a book cover (for the ] novel '']'') which has since been replaced by the first-edition cover. It can be deleted without concern. ] 17:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
	== Thomas Pynchon ==

			==review request==
	Thanks for your message. I'm not 100% sure why i tagged for immediate attention as i put the tag on almost two weeks ago. On looking at the article again, it does actually look very good, the main reason I can think of for tagging is that there are some long sections 'themes and influences' and '1990s and 2000s' that could maybe do with being broken-up or cut down. Let me know if you want to collaborate on anything, you seem to have interesting interests! --] 11:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
			I'd like to get your thoughts on ]. One thing I have tried to do is make sure that there is an alternative policy that neither elevates nor denigrates credentials on wikipedia.] 02:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

			== Thanks for showing the link ==
	:OK, I can see the justice in that (though I'm juggling too many eggs right now to undertake a major article revision). Personally, I wouldn't consider a couple overlong sections to be an issue warranting "immediate attention" — sometimes we have to reserve tags for ''really serious problems!'' — but I certainly appreciate your taking a look at it. I have occasionally thought about creating a "Timeline of Pynchon criticism" article roughly along the model of ], though geared more toward summaries than listing quotations; the Pynchon article itself seems to me to have a pretty good length, but it would be nice to have a repository for additional information. This might help take the weight off the main article and allow those sections to be shortened, too. (See ], ], ], ], ] and ] for other places where I have tried this strategy.)

			I appreciate you showing the link to Essjay controversy. Apparently I missed out the whole issue even though I was very active at that time in Misplaced Pages. Thanks again.
	:I expect to be awfully busy when '']'' comes out. How quickly do you think we could read the book and write a fantastic article on it? ] 19:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
			] 04:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
			'''P.S. No reply needed.'''

			==]==
	==tBa==
			I think you have a good idea on the section on synthesis, and I have suggested what might be done about it. ] <small>]</small> 21:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
	Hi. I've been looking at ]. Since I'm ''relatively'' new (less than 2000 edits), the top heading has kind of scared me off editing it, which I'd like to do for some fairly minor grammar points. That's not much of a worry, since I'll do that anyway at some point soon (I highly doubt I'd be mistaken for a sock puppet).... but I was wondering if you knew how long that ArbCom banner will be staying on the article? It seems to me that it's a pretty evil thing to have on an open encyclopedia. Thank ] I wasn't involved in the whole scandal/wikiwarring. If you had any information about whether that banner will stay there permanently or not, I'd appreciate hearing. Thanks! --] 22:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
	:PS. I ask you since you have the last 2 edits on the talk page and seem to know about the history of it. I'm ''not'' asking how long the ruling stays in effect (that, I gather (and hope) is permanent), just that banner. --] 22:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

			:Here's . To me the chunk of material about the mating habits of non-human animals is original research in the context of an article about ], ''even if someone can provide a citation''. Why? Because it is not an example of polyamory - it is, at best, tangentially connected in some way, and we are being invited to draw a conclusion about what that way might be. If the obvious additional comment were made, "Therefore polyamory is natural and good", the OR nature of it would be obvious, but the fact that no connection is explicitly made does not change the fact that it is someone conducting his/her own research project. On the other hand, if the conclusion to be drawn were something uncontroversial, or if a citation could be provided not only for the facts but also for the inference, it would look less like someone on their own frolic. The current AfD re the list of FRSs who have a public position on religion is also an example, though not everyone seems to see it that way. ] 09:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
	::I wish I knew myself how long that banner will stay! I could see the wording being toned down maybe sometime soon, but I expect it'll take at least a few months without significant "sockpuppet theater" before the ArbCom could be persuaded that the hazard is past.

			== 2nd opinion ==
	::2000 edits should be enough of a safety margin — if you look at the ], the vast majority of them jumped in on their very first edit. . . . ] 14:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

			I just noticed that I've started four AfD today -- without actively seeking for bad stuff or doing anything like new article patrol. Unfortunately I've found an entire set of dubious articles. I'm sometimes wondering whether I'm becoming more and more paranoid (and editors I respect, like ] already cricized me), so I would like to get a second opinion before starting even more AfDs.
	::P.S. If you care to try any more substantial edits, you may wish to look over ]'s comments above, which I copied ] for scratch-work purposes. ] 18:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

			If you volunteer, take a look and comment at ]. There are two (loosely related) sets: the "X economy" articles and the air powered car stuff. As the energy density of compressed air is that bad (correctly explained at ]), I can't take these air powered car proposals seriously, if not as an investor scam.
	== Lubos Motl and the Bogdanov brothers ==

			] 21:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
	Hi. I've just edited the ] article to link to his blog post about a Bogdanov paper, and added a quote from the post.

			:My first reaction would be to trash the "X economy" articles (with the possible exception on notability grounds of ]), since anything worthwhile they say can be covered, should be covered and/or already ''is'' covered in articles like ]. I suggest ] as a merge target for ]. The air-powered car stuff can also go, I think, since if we keep articles around on these companies we might as well use Misplaced Pages to host ]. I suspect ] is a legitimate page, although the "Starrotor Corporation" paragraph looks like advert-cruft. ] 14:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
	I personally don't think that LM's writing about Bogdanov affair merits inclusion in the article. It's only there because of ], who has put negative stuff into that article several times. (His first effort read "Motl is an impassioned defender of the Bogdanov Brothers", which is clearly false.) This may be related to some off-wiki feud, just as Motl's positive comments about the Bogdanovs' paper could be in part motivated by conflict with ]. Anyhow, please check my version and improve it as you see fit. Cheers, ]<small>]</small> 01:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

			== "fractured ceramics" ==
	:I agree that it doesn't really merit inclusion, but as long as one editor insists on keeping it there, your version sounds good enough. I approve. See ]'s comments ] for further speculation which agrees with yours. ] 17:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

			Took me a few seconds. Nice. ] ] 19:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
	== News from the Bogdanovs and Ciel & Espace ==

			:A friend told me that ] maintained a file with that name (I mean a file as in the manila folder thing one keeps in a cabinet) holding the letters he got from people about perpetual motion machines, theories of everything and so forth. I don't know if it's true, but I like the phrase. ] 20:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
	and :
	"A French court has now decided the case against the Bogdanovs, fining them 2500 Euros for frivolous litigation and requiring them to pay the magazine’s costs."

			==]==
	This should definitely be included in the Misplaced Pages article, perhaps next month when the official announcement in the magazine itself could be referenced (I'got official confirmation by e-mail from C&E). ] 13:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
			] has been nominated for a ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. Reviewers' concerns are ].
			] 01:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

	:~~Thank~~ ~~you for bringing this to my attention.~~ I ~~will~~ ~~probably~~ ~~wait~~ ~~until~~ ~~an official announcement~~, so I ~~can better follow~~ the ]. ~~Best wishes,~~ ] 17:50, 14 ~~September~~ ~~2006~~ (UTC)		:I don't think I'll have much time to help, but thanks for the notice. ] 17:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

	== ~~Headgear engineering~~ ==		== FAR ==
	I was led from the ] to pictures of ] himself, and found that he normally wears a particular type of headgear . Intrigued, I tried to find out what it was. From there, I found the website telling people how to make these wondrous devices (, ), a deluxe form of tinfoil hat (I am not saying that this is definitely what Hutchison wears, but it certainly looks very similar, and you know how the saying goes, if the cap fits...). Anyway, the Misplaced Pages vanity piece on the "inventor" of this alien-abduction-stopping miracle-hat, ], is up for deletion. Contribute as you see fit.

			] has been nominated for a ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. Reviewers' concerns are ].
	Oh - and if you're remodelling your home, you might want to consider lining the ceiling with Velostat: according to Mr. Menkin, it is the most effective substance for keeping out alien mind control, and that way you and yours don't need to wear ridiculous headgear. Of course, by the time you get round to checking this, it might be too late... ] 13:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

			== Morphic Merge ==
	:You neglect the fact that my home may be the ''source'' of the mind-control rays. ] 18:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

			Hi Anville. You recently moved ]; to release the title ] for the concept as it is more conventionally understood in biology. I have since then proposed a merge of the page you moved with ]. The discussion for this is at ], and I would welcome your input. Thanks -- ] (]\|]) 09:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
	== RQM ==
	Thanks for the fixup to the intro of the RQM article. Only, I'm not sure I agree with the insertion of "dependent upon" . The "state" isn't ''dependent upon'' the relation: in RQM, the state ''is'' the relation. As I understand it, that's one of the best, and weirdest, things about RQM (and philosophically the most interesting!). So I changed it back, but if you feel strongly, let me know. ] 22:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

			==Fair use rationale for ]==
	:'Fair nuff. Actually, what was getting to me was the absence of a verb after the "''i.e.''" — the flow just seemed to be wrong, and in trying to fix it, I picked a bad solution. Not the first time that's happened, and the probability is high that it won't be the last, sadly. ] 02:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
			]
			Thanks for uploading or contributing to ''']'''. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is no ] as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the ], you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found ].

			Please go to ] and edit it to include a ]. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
	::Well, since you drew attention to what ''is'' a problem, I put "the state is" in that spot ...which seems to work. ] 09:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

			If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale --> ] ] 00:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
	== Re: Total number of physics articles ==
			==Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lowry gathering blue cover.jpg)==
			] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, it is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).

			If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Orphaned --> ] 05:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
	(Responding to your message on ]) The only way I know to get the exact number of Physics articles is to tag them all with ], and then count the number of articles that are including that template. An alternative would be to count the number of articles in all of the physics-related categories (i.e. those on the list that I'm slowly working on), but that won't be as accurate as there will be a number of articles missed out, as well as a number of non-physics articles that are in those categories). I suppose you could say that those numbers are approximately equal, if you wanted. I believe that ] can count the number of articles in categories, and also what links/includes a certain page, using the "make list" function. As I haven't managed to persuade AWB to work properly on my Mac yet (using an emulated version of Windows), I can't be sure of that though. ] 07:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

			==List of planets in Futurama==
	== Meeting ==
			]
	How did the meeting with your Influential Person go? ] 11:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
			A ''']''' template has been added to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the ] process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's ], and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "]" and ]). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code><nowiki>{{dated prod}}</nowiki></code> notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on ]. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the ], the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the ] or it can be sent to ], where it may be deleted if ] to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{tl\|db-author}} to the top of ]. <!-- Template:PRODWarning --> ] (]) 02:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

			==AfD nomination of ]==
	:Everything is moving more slowly than I'd like. Monday was an MIT student holiday, for one thing (they have one "Anti-Suicide Day" off each month, typically arranged to yield a three-day weekend). So all the professorial types are out of their offices, pressed for time, rescheduling things, etc. The good thing about being close to MIT again, though, is that a project like this can be built almost literally out of spare parts lying around.
			], an article you created, has been nominated for ]. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that ] satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "]" and the ]). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:AFDWarning --> ] (]) 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
			==Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pynchon-Against-the-Day.jpg)==
			] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, it is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).

			If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Orphaned --> ] (]) 20:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
	:I've also been futzing with the technical side, getting ] under control and so forth. (This in the middle of starting a new job, too — I must've been dropped on my head when I was little.) Tomorrow I should have more information on all these fronts. ] 01:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

			:Feh. A better version has been uploaded; let it die. ] (]) 19:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
	::Looking forward to hearing about it. It's good to see the support and approval the idea is gathering on the WikiProject Physics board. I don't think the project is going to be short of contributors. In my experience, though, professorial sorts are ''always'' out of their offices, pressed for time, rescheduling things, etc., particularly when you really need to talk to them about something.
	::I have been caught up in a bit of a situation on ], because I reverted an angry "]", ], who linked to the blog of the ], and a page of abstract search results, with a "criticism" of LQG. He took exception, despite my clear (well, I thought it was clear) explanation of why his addition didn't work, and it turned nasty for a while. But at least it's cooled somewhat now. ] 02:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

	:::I noticed the back-and-forth on the LQG talk page; for some reason, I have that page watchlisted, maybe because I like opportunities to argue, or else to act more sensible than everyone else and reap the karmic benefits of becoming the "voice of reason". Hopefully, though, this conflict will cool off, with or without actual progress being made on any article content.

			==Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lowry-messenger-2004.jpg==
	:::The Knight Protector's blog entries on everyone's favourite TV personalities were among the most underwhelming things I read while researching that Affair. Ironically or appropriately, they were about on a par with ]'s chapter in ''Not Even Wrong.'' I happened to read in a review somewhere that said book includes a chapter on ''l'Affaire Bogdanoff,'' so when I saw it in a bookstore I decided to leaf through it (otherwise I doubt I would have bothered). The chapter starts with Woit saying he had himself been tempted to pull a Sokal-style hoax on the superstring community, but refrained because he wasn't really sure how much a hoax like that could prove — and then he ends the chapter by saying the Bogdanovs proved something about the superstring community! Obviously, something about the particular details of the Affair made it turn out differently than he anticipated (''i.e.,'' Woit does not have 20/20 precognition).
			Thanks for uploading ''']'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at ] carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

			If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:No fair -->] (]) 19:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::He goes on at considerable length about how Igor Bogdanov ] in ] instead of ]. This is quite a gaffe, to be sure, but Igor was only quoting from a person named Rose, and repeating "''] lituanien''" from the earlier message. Of course, the whole story is ]: the Bogdanovs can't keep straight whether they went to Riga in 2001 or 2002, etc.

	:::The fuss over the Latvian business distracts the discussion from a much more general and more interesting point. It is easy to claim that the Brothers B. demonstrated how the peer-review system fails, but in a broader perspective, the scientific community as a whole did its job. Otherwise, we wouldn't know about it. Taking the mess as an indictment of string theory obscures the Bogdanovs' method, namely to take jargon from all fields they could possibly contact and string those pieces into superficially plausible prose, so that no one person could be counted upon to know all the words they used. ("t is one thing to use terms from many disciplines and sciences and another thing altogether to have a profound or even superficial knowledge of those same disciplines and sciences," said ] of ], rebutting the charge that the author of the latter man's plays had to be a more educated man than the bloke from Stratford.) In a parallel Universe where TQFTs are king and strings are unknown, the Bogdanov papers would have had an identical effect, even with all the words unchanged. (])
	:::] 02:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::Whew. That was a longer rant than I had intended. ] 02:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::Hehe. It happens. You make a good point though. Disturbingly, some people dumping papers on the arXiv (and sometimes even publishing them) don't even seem to understand the difference between approaches which use loop quantisation in general, and actual LQG (which is one of many). Read a paper by ] or ], and you have a picture of clarity, with minimal, and ''appropriate'', use of jargon. But then move on to ] (one of those to which I referred in the beginning of this paragraph), and one finds key terms idly tossed off the tongue here and there to cover up for lack of rigour and even meaning. But it gets published — because no-one is prepared to admit they don't understand it or disagree with it, in case they look stupid, or are proven wrong.
	::::And this whole brouhaha with Lorentz invariance — ''ye gods''. To be honest, I think that part of the whole thing is that people are desperate for "experimental results". So, they grasp at something, anything, which might allow them to be "the one" who confirms or falsifies the theory (and I believe there is a lot of that kind of thinking going on in the background). If playing up some silly pseudo-paradox over Lorentz invariance allows for an experimental test of a theory that amounts to "mathematical metaphysics", then so be it. It means that there is a chance of being the one whose name is recorded in the history books next to Newton and Einstein.
	::::The Bogdanovs are just a couple of comical scapegoats, in a sense, for what is an endemic situation. Peer review is not really limited to journal editorial boards...a patois of jargon dressed up in what promises to be an original idea or two will evidently pass muster with some of them. But then, other people read the papers and comment on them. A major problem, I think, is that there are ''too many'' papers being generated to keep up. Every day, hundreds of them are submitted to the arXiv, and it is impossible to read all of them. So, if the abstract looks like rubbish, the paper is ignored. That's fine to a point: not every bad idea needs criticism. But then, one has incestuous circles of inter-citation starting to form, as bluffers cite other bluffers, until the idea gains a whole lot of credibility, simply because it has generated a furore in the literature. But that doesn't mean it's right. ] 04:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

			==Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tommy-og-Tigern.gif==
	I was going to remove this page from my watchlist, but I can't resist joining in this fascinating conversation. (I've also un-indented.) There's a big problem with filtering and aggregation of scholarly works. Up until (say) the 1980s, the system of hard-copy, typeset journals which required peer-review before publishing worked reasonably well, IMO. But since then:
			Thanks for uploading ''']'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at ] carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
	#The number of academics has increased.
	#Universities and colleges rely more on counting publications to assess their staff (as opposed to making judgements about the quality of someone's research or teaching).
	#So doing peer review brings little personal benefit and costs time that could be spent producing papers, which does bring rewards.
	#A very quick way of distributing preprints without waiting for typesetters, international mail, etc has arisen.
	Sites like arXiv are much better at the making information available than the "old" system, but don't supplant the filtering or aggregation functions. Putting it that way suggests the broad outlines of a possible solution: aggregators who post brief notes about papers they consider worth reading, or even about papers they consider useless. Of course, to be a good aggregator you would need to be a recognised expert in the relevant field(s) and to spend lots of time reading papers, checking them out and writing about them, instead of doing your own research. How many universities would be happy for (say) a 50 year old professor to stop doing research and concentrate on telling other researchers which papers they should read?

			If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:No fair -->] (]) 10:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
	] has written some interesting papers about this (irony not intended).
	Cheers, ]<small>]</small> 12:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

	:Thank you for pointing me to the Odlyzko papers; they are indeed interesting. In "Tragic loss or good riddance?" (1994), Odlyzko writes,
	::Scientists might not like to depend on systems that owe their existence to the demand for X-rated movies, but they will use such systems when they become available.
	:One can argue equally well in reverse, I think, and point out that Internet pornographers ] to ].
	:The question now becomes, "How can we make aggregating papers (or contributing to a wiki, etc.) a worthwhile use of professors' time?" Collaborative systems live and die by their flux of contributions; the best way to ruin a wiki is a denial of participation attack. What can we offer which will make those universities happy that their fifty-year-old professors are putzing around on the Web? Some small hope exists, of course: universities are happy to see their professors write books, for example, and review articles appear to count towards one's citable publications. If it becomes in the administration's best interest to have faculty engaging in ]-style , then it will be in the faculty's best interest to do so, and the open peer review system will move forward. ] 14:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

			==Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TracerBullet.jpg==
	:Another paragraph I just love:
			Thanks for uploading ''']'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at ] carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
	::The first point that should be made is that electronic publication does not in any way prevent the maintenance of present publishing standards. Electronic journals can follow exactly the same policies (and might even have the same names) as the current paper journals. On the other hand, paper journals are no guarantee against unreliable results, since the practices Quinn deplores are common in some fields, and have been present for a long time. Thus the reliability of literature in any field depends primarily on the publishing norms in that field, and not on the medium. Quinn is right that electronic publication does present increased temptations to careless communication. Computers do promote a less thoughtful style of correspondence. However, that can also be said of the telephone, or even a good postal service. Just read the letters that people used to write in the 18th century. By today's standards, they tended to be literary masterpieces. The difference was that letters took a long time to deliver, and were expensive, so substantial care was taken in writing them. However, nobody is suggesting that the Post Office put a minimum 20-day hold on all letters (even if it sometimes seems they are trying to do it on their own) to promote better writing. In the transition to electronic publishing, we will just have to develop methods of coping with the new trends.
	:OMG! That makes me ROFL!! ] 14:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

			If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:No fair -->] (]) 02:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	==Attention Anville==

	Hello, User Anville. Recently, User Byrgenwulf authored an account of your joint attack against the CTMU and its author, me, and DrL. When I pointed out that this account was disruptive and largely inaccurate, Byrgenwulf did the only responsible thing: he removed it, blanking the page.

			==Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Calvin-et-Hobbes.gif==
	Having linked the talk page of John Baez to a previous version of that document, you managed to defeat Byrgenwulf's final edit by going back and modifying your link. This is unacceptable, not least because after explicitly acknowledging Professor Baez's desire for "peace and quiet", it appears that you are trying to suck him further into a controversy that you helped to create.
			Thanks for uploading ''']'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at ] carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

			If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:No fair -->] (]) 18:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
	I am therefore requesting that you remove the link in question. If you do not, then since you are using Byrgenwulf's erroneous screed to disinform another Misplaced Pages editor even after its author duly removed it, and since your intentions appear to be malicious and disruptive, I will proceed accordingly. If you are unclear on what this means, or on why the document is unacceptable, please see .

			==Image copyright problem with Image:Hidden-curriculum-cover.jpg==
	If you really care about good faith, the stability of Misplaced Pages, and the wishes of Professor Baez (and User Byrgenwulf), you should have no problem complying with this request immediately. If you do not, my first step will be to disabuse Professor Baez directly on his talk page (unfortunately, this may not conduce to his peace and quiet). I will then proceed as necessary.
			Thanks for uploading ]. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of ], but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets ]. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an ] linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

			:* That there is a ] on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
	Thanks for your prompt attention, and have a nice day. ] 14:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
			:* That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
			<!-- Additional 10c list header goes here -->

			This is an automated notice by ]. For assistance on the image use policy, see ]. --] (]) 14:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
	:I do not wish to disrupt the "peace and quiet" of any individual who has earned my respect; indeed, since I tend by default to respect people I meet (both in real life and on the Net), until circumstances disabuse me of that desire I tend to do a whole lot of non-disruption. Nothing ''I'' have done has injected strife and noise into Prof. Baez's discussion page; in fact, . If ''you'' care about any of the lofty notions you have so carefully enumerated, you could do well to abide by them instead of following what any outside observer must inevitably construe as an agenda of disruption.

			==Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Bjork Pagan-Poetry uncensored.jpg==
	:I participate in this project because I wish all people to be as well-informed as possible so that they can make sensible decisions based upon the best possible input. This, I believe, counts as adequate motivation for all my actions. If said actions displease you, then that's your problem. I strongly dislike being bullied by the intellectual equivalent of schoolyard tactics; invoking the name of an individual whom I ''do'' respect and with whom I have had only positive interactions does not raise the tactician in my esteem. I doubt that Mr. Langan, whose CTMU was the origin of this whole affair, would be pleased to see such devices employed by his admirers, since Langan is by all accounts an honorable man.
			Thank you for uploading ''']'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by ]. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from ] is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an ]; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

			If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our ]. If you have any questions, please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:No fair --> ] (]) 14:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
	:If you choose to continue employing such low-handed methods on my talk page, you will no longer be welcome here. Further communications should be conducted through your advocate, ].

			== Omnipotence paradox ==
	:] 14:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
			{{#if:\|] has\|I have}} nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ].--] (]) 17:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

			== FAR for ] ==
	::Thanks for your cooperation. Although I naturally disagree with some of your remarks - particularly those regarding your motives - I won't bother to argue with them at the present time. However, I would ask that you refrain from attempting to restore the offending link, as this would count as further disruptive behavior. (By the way, David Mestel serves as my advocate only with respect to User Hillman.) ] 15:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

			{{#if:\|] has\|I have}} nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. Regards, —] (]) 19:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
	:::My motives are my motives are my motives. Whatever. ] 17:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

			==Orphaned non-free image File:Lowry-messenger-2004.jpg==
	== Scientific wiki ==
			<span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">''']'''</span> Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).

			If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> ]] 14:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
	It seems sort of appropriate that as I tried to access this page, Misplaced Pages told me in big, bold letters: "Misplaced Pages has a problem" (followed by "Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties."). You mentioned at WP:Phys that you're setting up a mailing list for discussion of a scientific wiki; if/when you do this, I would be like to join the mailing list and help get the new wiki up and running. ] 15:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

			==Fair use rationale for File:Attack-of-the-smart-pies.jpg==
	==Relevant RfArb==
			]
			Thanks for uploading or contributing to ''']'''. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under ] but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to ] and edit it to include a ].

			If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-no fair use rationale-notice --> ] (]) 21:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
	] may be of interest to you. --] 17:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

			==]==
	:It ''is'' of interest to me, but I doubt I could do much good there. Too many statements posted there seem to be, ahem, one vertex short of a Feynman diagram, and I'm a bit afraid that delving into that will induce brain aneurysms and/or spontaneous Wikipedian combustion. If I can get these old fingers of mine to produce a spectacularly elegant paragraph, I'll post it. Here's hoping that will happen.
			A GA review of ] is taking place and has been put on hold for an initial seven days to allow work to take place to address concerns mainly around referencing and original research. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">''']''' *]</span> 23:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
			==Non-free rationale for File:Klingklangklatch.jpg==
			]
			Thanks for uploading or contributing to ''']'''. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under ], but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages is acceptable. Please go to ], and edit it to include a ].

			If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on ]. If the file is already gone, you can still make a ] and ask for a chance to fix the problem.<!-- Template:You can request undeletion --> If you have any questions, please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-no fair use rationale-notice --> ] (]) 21:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
	:Good luck. ] 18:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
			== File:The-giver-binomial.png listed for deletion ==
			A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 04:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

			== FYI deletion discussion notification ==
	::Even if you just post that you are an interested party, that would be helpful. Then if the case is accepted you will receive notice of the proceedings. --] 18:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

			Please see . You originally had uploaded this file to English Misplaced Pages, notifying you as I had moved it to ] where it's now up for deletion. — ''']''' (]) 03:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
	:::I will go and declare my interest. ] 18:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

			==GAR notification==
	:::— . ] 19:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
			], an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

			== ] ==
	== Weasels and stoats ==
	And would you look at . I like this bit:
	:''On the other hand, anyone who has attempted to write for a reputable large-circulation periodical knows full well that the editors of such periodicals are unwilling to devote ''any significant print space at all'' to ideas that are trivial, useless or uninteresting ("non-notable"), and thus that anything but a passing blow-off is proof of notability.''
	Are things like that in the US? They aren't like that in South Africa or the UK, I know that much for certain. ] 15:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

			Hi,<br>
	:Unless the United States is radically different from all my impressions of it, no, that statement you quoted is not correct. It is, to put the matter bluntly, in flamboyant contradiction with obvious facts. ] 17:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
			You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=693174033 -->
			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].

			The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
	== New Scientist ==

			Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> <span style="background:#F0F0FF; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 17:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
	Hi! Don't worry, Anville, you're not disturbing my peace and quiet.
			==Orphaned non-free image File:Calvin-et-Hobbes.gif==
			] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).

			Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 17:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
	If you or your friends want to tell the editor of New Scientist your concerns over their reportage of crackpot physics, please post a lucid, polite comment on - they're having a discussion about .
			==Orphaned non-free image File:Tommy-og-Tigern.gif==
			] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).

			Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 17:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
	] 16:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
			<div class="afd-notice">
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].

			The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
	:Good to know. The past few months have been, as the saying goes, . Now, off to see if I can say anything useful about that Emdrive business. I note with regret that not all of the comments on that ''New Scientist'' blog have been polite; strong language doesn't bother ''me'' too much, but I don't like providing the people running the discussion with an excuse to delete comments. ] 17:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

			Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
	::Well, I decided to go and leave a piece of my mind over there. I really am trying very hard with this diplomacy thing...I was diplomatic to New Scientist ''and'' to Asmodeus, all in the space of an hour! ] 17:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
			<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</sub> 10:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
			==Orphaned non-free image File:Attack-of-the-smart-pies.jpg==
			] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).

			Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 17:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::You make my mind, well, ''boggle!'' (-: ] 17:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:07, 25 August 2024

You're wrong. I'm right.

And that won't change, not even if we fight!

—Mary Prankster, "Tell Your Friends (Part Deux)"

Anville

This user believes Misplaced Pages Awaits Silent Trystero's Empire.

This user is on indefinite Wiki-sabbatical.

Archives
February 2004 to June 2005 July 2005 to February 2006 April to June 2006 July to October 2006

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 11:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bogdanov Affair

Your welcome. I found the article from browsing down into Category:Banned Misplaced Pages users (a short list, though at least two editors I've edited with have ended up on it lately), so I was really surprised by finding a quality well-ref'd article considering the rathole I'd just crawled through, and even more so after the scary "Give up all hope ye who enter here" Gates of Hell-like intro-box. I remembered hearing about the affair back in 2002. I figured it was worth a discussion, though cries of "too soon" were expected. -- Kendrick7 20:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Damn it...

... I hope you'll come back. Metamagician3000 01:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I see you've been contributing! Time to lose the "leaving Misplaced Pages" box? Metamagician3000 01:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, most of my "contributions" have been due to finding something by accident and realizing I was more able to fix it than anybody else. (Speaking of which, have you any thoughts on WP:FRINGE?) I still feel more "gone" than "back", and it's not as though my free time is growing without bounds. . . . We'll have to see what 2007 brings. Best wishes, Anville 19:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My first thought about WP:FRINGE was that it was unnecessary and provocative to have it at all, but I'm more positive about it now. I'll have a look. I hope you are pleased at how the the Pseudoscience case turned out. I thought that the ArbCom handled it very wisely and fairly. (I'm not so pleased that MONGO has been desysopped in another recent case, but them's the breaks.) Metamagician3000 22:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought the ArbCom handled the Pseudoscience and ScienceApologist cases in a pretty judicious way. While I have often been frustrated by Misplaced Pages's inability to deal with chronic problems — cruft buildup in Featured Articles, for example — whenever a group of Wikipedians is forced to make a judgment call, it seems to work out well by the time the bits settle. Anville 00:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrocausality

As per JzG's recommendation, I've totally reworked the above article as a revamped stub. Please take another look if you like. Thanks Bwithh 20:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

And Chaos

Good work on the article. I've changed my vote. If you haven't already, I recommend contacting the original AFD nominator and request he/she withdraw the nomination. Failing that, if the article is deleted it can always be recreated under the correct title format. Do you know the year the book was published? There should be a year category added to the article. 23skidoo 17:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: AfD

Thanks, for the note about the changes made to the "And Chaos Died" article. I'm always a proponent of fixing articles rather than deleting them wherever possible, and it looks like some great progress was made. great job! I'm definately going to argue for a keep on the basis of a good cleanup and sourcing.

Also, just so you know, you seem like you might be interested in some changes I've been mulling over making to Sex in science fiction to give 80's sci/fi (IE the cyberpunk movement) some representation given the sociological themes brought up in seminal works of the genre like "Neuromancer" and "Islands in the Net". I'm also considering writing some articles for author Walter Jon Williams. If you'd like to help or just be kept abreast of any changes just let me know!

Thanks again, Wintermut3 22:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Those all sound like great things to work on. Unfortunately, I haven't had the time lately to contribute to WP in any major way (and it looks like this situation won't change for the foreseeable future). Still, if you'd like any input — or if you've put something on Peer review or FAC — let me know. E-mails will reach me more surely and rapidly than comments on this page, although I'll try to check both of them frequently.

Metamagician3000 is around more often than I am these days and is interested in many of the same topics. Anville 22:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Energy: world resources and consumption

Could you please look at the brand new Energy: world resources and consumption and comment if it is ready to be a featured article? Thank you for your help.
Frank van Mierlo 13:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:And Chaos Died.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:And Chaos Died.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, let me state that the image is a book cover (for the Joanna Russ novel And Chaos Died) which has since been replaced by the first-edition cover. It can be deleted without concern. Anville 17:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

review request

I'd like to get your thoughts on User:MikeURL/Credentials. One thing I have tried to do is make sure that there is an alternative policy that neither elevates nor denigrates credentials on wikipedia.MikeURL 02:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for showing the link

I appreciate you showing the link to Essjay controversy. Apparently I missed out the whole issue even though I was very active at that time in Misplaced Pages. Thanks again. OhanaUnited 04:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. No reply needed.

Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community_discussion

I think you have a good idea on the section on synthesis, and I have suggested what might be done about it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's another example. To me the chunk of material about the mating habits of non-human animals is original research in the context of an article about polyamory, even if someone can provide a citation. Why? Because it is not an example of polyamory - it is, at best, tangentially connected in some way, and we are being invited to draw a conclusion about what that way might be. If the obvious additional comment were made, "Therefore polyamory is natural and good", the OR nature of it would be obvious, but the fact that no connection is explicitly made does not change the fact that it is someone conducting his/her own research project. On the other hand, if the conclusion to be drawn were something uncontroversial, or if a citation could be provided not only for the facts but also for the inference, it would look less like someone on their own frolic. The current AfD re the list of FRSs who have a public position on religion is also an example, though not everyone seems to see it that way. Metamagician3000 09:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

2nd opinion

I just noticed that I've started four AfD today -- without actively seeking for bad stuff or doing anything like new article patrol. Unfortunately I've found an entire set of dubious articles. I'm sometimes wondering whether I'm becoming more and more paranoid (and editors I respect, like User:Omegatron already cricized me), so I would like to get a second opinion before starting even more AfDs.

If you volunteer, take a look and comment at User_talk:Pjacobi#Even_more_notes_to_self. There are two (loosely related) sets: the "X economy" articles and the air powered car stuff. As the energy density of compressed air is that bad (correctly explained at air engine), I can't take these air powered car proposals seriously, if not as an investor scam.

Pjacobi 21:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My first reaction would be to trash the "X economy" articles (with the possible exception on notability grounds of methanol economy), since anything worthwhile they say can be covered, should be covered and/or already is covered in articles like biodiesel. I suggest alcohol fuel as a merge target for methanol economy. The air-powered car stuff can also go, I think, since if we keep articles around on these companies we might as well use Misplaced Pages to host generous offers from rich Nigerian widows. I suspect gerotor is a legitimate page, although the "Starrotor Corporation" paragraph looks like advert-cruft. Anville 14:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"fractured ceramics"

Took me a few seconds. Nice. bikeable (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

A friend told me that Carl Sagan maintained a file with that name (I mean a file as in the manila folder thing one keeps in a cabinet) holding the letters he got from people about perpetual motion machines, theories of everything and so forth. I don't know if it's true, but I like the phrase. Anville 20:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Cyberpunk

Cyberpunk has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. P4k 01:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'll have much time to help, but thanks for the notice. Anville 17:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

FAR

Isaac Asimov has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Morphic Merge

Hi Anville. You recently moved Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake); to release the title Morphogenetic field for the concept as it is more conventionally understood in biology. I have since then proposed a merge of the page you moved with Morphic field. The discussion for this is at Talk:Morphic field#Merge with Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake), and I would welcome your input. Thanks -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 09:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bjork_Pagan-Poetry_uncensored.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Bjork_Pagan-Poetry_uncensored.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 00:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lowry gathering blue cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lowry gathering blue cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

List of planets in Futurama

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of planets in Futurama, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of List of planets in Futurama. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of planets in Futurama

List of planets in Futurama, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of planets in Futurama satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and the Misplaced Pages deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of planets in Futurama and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of planets in Futurama during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pynchon-Against-the-Day.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Pynchon-Against-the-Day.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Feh. A better version has been uploaded; let it die. Anville (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lowry-messenger-2004.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lowry-messenger-2004.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tommy-og-Tigern.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Tommy-og-Tigern.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TracerBullet.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TracerBullet.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Calvin-et-Hobbes.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Calvin-et-Hobbes.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

Image copyright problem with Image:Hidden-curriculum-cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hidden-curriculum-cover.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Misplaced Pages's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Bjork Pagan-Poetry uncensored.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Bjork Pagan-Poetry uncensored.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Omnipotence paradox

I have nominated Omnipotence paradox for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

FAR for Thomas Pynchon

I have nominated Thomas Pynchon for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lowry-messenger-2004.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lowry-messenger-2004.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. JaGa 14:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Attack-of-the-smart-pies.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Attack-of-the-smart-pies.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Three Laws of Robotics/GA1

A GA review of Three Laws of Robotics is taking place and has been put on hold for an initial seven days to allow work to take place to address concerns mainly around referencing and original research. SilkTork * 23:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Klingklangklatch.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Klingklangklatch.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

File:The-giver-binomial.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The-giver-binomial.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Decstop (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI deletion discussion notification

Please see this deletion discussion. You originally had uploaded this file to English Misplaced Pages, notifying you as I had moved it to Wikimedia Commons where it's now up for deletion. — Cirt (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

GAR notification

Calvin and Hobbes, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of The Hidden Curriculum for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Hidden Curriculum is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Hidden Curriculum until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. czar 17:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Calvin-et-Hobbes.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Calvin-et-Hobbes.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tommy-og-Tigern.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tommy-og-Tigern.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Nomination of MIT in popular culture for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MIT in popular culture is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/MIT in popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Attack-of-the-smart-pies.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Attack-of-the-smart-pies.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).