Archive of comments from Jan 2006 to June 2006 at Lumos3's Discussion page , placed here October 19th 2006. Lumos3 16:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I hope I am addressing Lumos3. I'm not familiar with these website communication methods. I do not want to edit the Wikipedia article on Verniers, but I do have a question for anyone who can answer it:

    I have used Vernier scales all my life in various instruments, and I have always wondered why they work.  I.e., I don't mean how do you use one, and not even how does it work, but WHY does it work.  Even the current Wikipedia article is not entirely clear on that.

    If anyone answers me, it would seem that the answer would be a very worthwhile addition to the Wikipedia article.

                   Andrew Charig   New Jersey  USA
                   ACharig@hotmail.com

please consider this [1] Slrubenstein | Talk 23:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your reply to my comments about psychology and anthroposophy. I assume you are referring to the principle that a theory is scientific only if there is a way of disproving it. It is necessary to remind oneself here, however, that it is not necessarily possible to actually test many scientific theories at the time of their proposal - the theory of continental drift, Einstein's general relativity, and string theory come to mind. (There are those who believe the latter is totally impossible to prove or disprove, incidentally; yet it is considered a scientific theory. So much for Popper.)

Anthroposophical research is frequently very concrete and provable/disprovable; see the crystallization work to test qualities of substances, the mistletoe extracts for cancer treatment (approved on the basis of rigorous clinical test in many countries), and the suggestion that early learning of reading will weaken overall learning over time (many studies support this). Some of Steiner's ideas are more challenging to find ways to prove or disprove, but his developmental ideas do not fall into this category and are well supported by Piaget's work, for example.

Finally, all presently important descriptions of child development deserve mention in an encyclopedia. It is not a journal of peer-reviewed research, it is a description of what is presently active in various areas.

Thank you for your reply. You misunderstand . I am not saying there shouldn’t be an Anthroposophy article, merely that it is not a science.

The principal of falsification means that theories are held up to attempts to falsify them. Continental drift, relativity and string theory all make certain predictions about the properties of matter and what we would expect to find when we examine the universe under certain conditions. Observations which conflict with this prediction would tend to falsify that theory and cause it to be discredited and prompt the search for a replacement theory.

It is the task of science to not only perform repeatable experiments that give results which confirm with a theories predication but to devise demanding experiments which might possibly give results that discredit it. These experiments also have to be made public so that others can repeat them and get the same result.

I can see no way that Anthroposophy by it subjective nature can give results that can be consistently seen by others since each individuals experience is necessarily private. I don’t say that it is without value, just that it is not a science by any modern meaning of the word. Lumos3 21:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I see that 62.253.219.238 has reinstated your reversion to the Hemel Hempstead article, leaving 'nearby places' as was. Now what? I've left a msg on his/ her talk page inviting them to discuss, but..... Folks at 137 13:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I have removed it again. Please follow the Wikipedia maxim of " Be bold" and make changes yourselves if you think fit. Lumos3 21:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Lumos, would appreciate it if you are to revert that you at least use the talk page to discuss your reasons. That is what they exist for. Thanks. Theo 14:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Lumos, I have asked you to please use the Astrology Talk Page before your instant reverting. Today, just several minutes after I added sources, you instantly "reverted" back to the non-sourced page that does not have consensus - as you claim. I ask you to stop, and to either cite sources for the page you keep reverting to, or add sources. You have not done so and you are becoming the chief "reverter." Please stop, and cite sources, reference materials to back up what is written on the Wiki-Astrology page. Moreover Lumos, you show little knowledge of astrology yourself, but claim that sources are not needed. I suggest you refer to Wikipedia and cease your POV reverts on this page. If you must claim, as you do, that sources are not needed, then explain yourself then as to the reason. I would be most interested in hearing your reasoning behind this since astrology can be sourced, and sources cited. Thanks. Theo 17:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Theo, please see hypocrisy. — Ruud 17:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Ruud, please see rude and immaturity. Grow up and get the history straight. Suggest you try learning more before playing POVer in an Ayn Rand novel. Or Atlas Shrugged. You could use the break. In fact, please learn history of mathematics - start with Carl Boyer - among the other sources that you don't want to go to the library to reference. Free your mind - the Fountainhead and the rest will follow. Suggest you first complete your college education before playing professor at the fresh age of 20, ok Capricorn?. Theo 22:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi,

I'm taking steps to lodge a formal complaint against User:Theodore7 due to various reasons that I'm sure that you are aware of, or have experienced by now. Right now I have a rough draft of the complaint that I would like to have some people look over, add to, correct, and sign if they agree with it. I've never had to do anything like this before, so if you would please take some time to take a look at it and give me some feedback, suggestions, support, etc., then I would really appreciate it. It can be found here: [2] Thank you. -- Chris Brennan 06:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I support you in this and will look at it today. Lumos3 09:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I would suggest that both of you first take a look at Wikipedia's guidelines on "biting newcomers" - that may help you greatly. Theo 15:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply

"C" something ugly going on at FR Klenner. 03:29, 21 January 2006 137.229.184.137

I would appreciate your review of [Megavitamin therapy] and [Abram Hoffer]. After 4 weeks, I am interested to drop the "sign" on MVT. I am not sure how score is kept on an open RfC like for FRK or whether you can comment or help conclude it. Thanks "69.178.31.177"

The kids (looks like college students) have " lynched" (it's not vandalism, they did it together in two hours ;) the Glyconutrient article that was ref'd in Orthomolecular Med. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AGlyconutrient#Brazen_deletion I am thinking about also inviting Andrew73, JFW, and/or DocJohnny (some orthodox editors) for a little tet-a-tet about process abuse. -- 66.58.130.26 01:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC) (ISP changed login fr 69.178.31.177) reply

Megavitamin therapy, orthomolecular med and psych articles are being NPOV,etc tagged without supporting refs or substantial comments if you are interested. I am wary, watching my 3R carefully.-- 69.178.41.55 05:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, I see that you have stumbled into the whale.to controversy. I've replied to your concerns on Fred Klenner's page, but think it's probably best to keep the rest of the conversation on the MMR Vaccine Talk page. InvictaHOG 17:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Talk, while you allopaths delete any vaccine criticism, which is the only reason you delete whale links, it being the number one anti-vaccine website, you can see their games here [3]. Hogs only argument for that was ad hominem when you look at TalkMMR. Now when I removed that one by putting all the vaccine stuff on another site they still delete links to that. This is an anonymous allopath:

• I didn't really know where to put this notice.... John (Whaleto) is now adding a "different" link to all of his articles (ex. [4]). The link is http://www.(nospam)vaccination.org.uk, which is quite obviously a copy of the whale.to site, or a transfer of the contents to a different location. I seem to be on his radar now, so I'll go remove all the links I can find. -- CDN99 18:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC) [5]. You have to ask what they don't want anyone to see, must be this [6]. Cheers john 11:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Whale fat follies

The Whale was RfC'd by dolphin s and orcas. Your review and comment is invited [7], [8], [9]. -- 66.58.130.26 14:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Fritz_Kolbe.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you. -- Carnildo 08:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Airship Holland was NOT unsuccessful, it was Rigid Airship Design that was unsuccessful. Airship Holland is a new initiative based on the experience of Rigid Airship Design and has no connections with the RAD company. Please change the line. Thanks and best wishes. Willem

I am he. Indeed, I am not a published author; I am an AS Student who has only recently finished studying the eponymous cleric. I assure you that my essays are entirely my own work. By lending them to Wikipedia (a truly remarkable fountain of knowledge, which has aided me in my study on countless occasions) I felt I was sharing with other students the profits of my own labour in the hope that they might make their grasp of Wolsey just that little bit more confident. Admittedly, when I submitted the essays to you they were marked with, in garishly bold letters, "by Gerard Corvin" -not a publicity stunt, you can be sure. Nevertheless, if somewhere on the site you can credit me I would most appreciate it.

                                         Thank you, and keep up the good work!

I may collaborate again on New_Age BF 09:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC) reply

The article looks fine and big. The discussion...no comment here. There is a new entry in the talk page. ~ BF 05:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi there. Some time ago you moved some of the criticisms I'd drafted about Dixons back from the talk page into the article. You might find it amusing to learn that Chris Throup, who removed my lengthy criticisms, is an asociate or employee of Dixons as the bottom of this page shows. I have known this all along. The fact that he accused me of POV in placing the criticisms in the article led me to draw it out and let him dig himself into his shameful little sad, pit. He hasn't contributed to Wikipedia since November, so I've now put all the criticisms back into the main article. Hopefully he'll just do the honorable thing and commit Hari kari rather than try to blubber his way through his own disingenuousness. -- bodnotbod 20:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Close up of vernier scale.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 10:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I like your username and your explanation of it. May the Wiki be with you-- ragesoss 23:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC) reply

If you like Karl Popper then I recommend David Deutsch's book Fabric of Reality I found it really inspirational as it draws parallels between Popper's epistimology and the way knowledge is embodied in the structure of living things bythe process of falsification we know as natural selection, and much more in mathematics and computing also. Lumos3 09:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Please see my recent comment to you at Talk:J._K._Rowling#Further_comment. Thanks and best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 21:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Assuming you read my diatribes over at the JK Rowling discussion page, I just wanted to reassure you that I am not always so surly, but I do feel like I'm having to run circles needlessly at the moment while this... other person casually rips the article I'm maintaining apart. Serendipodous 16:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey Lumos ive read in the discussion about ascorbic acid, that you were looking for a detailed chemical discription of how its synthesized, and I was wondering if you ever got that discription and if you might put a link to that discription in the reply on this notice.

regards danish student

Sorry no one has replied on this. There is a short description in the Vitamin C article at Vitamin_C#Artificial_chemical_synthesis. Take a look at [10]. If you understand this and can add to the article please do. Lumos3 10:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Otec cc schematicii.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Stan 17:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Just a quick comment or two on your recent edits:

I believe that tranporting electrical energy over long distances thru DC rather than AC may actually be more efficient. The reason for that is radiation losses, which over long distances really may add up. Also, with modern solid state technology converting to high voltage DC is no longer an issue; in the past we were dependent upon transformers to convert to high voltage AC. Edison vindicated at last! In addition, there are of course those high-tempoperature superconductors which may help address the problem of power transport over long distances.

Another issue is the environmental impact; I posted some of my concerns on the talk page. Perhaps a bit exaggerated, but I think this is a serious issue that proponents tend to overlook. That is especially true for the mega-think type of scenario: solar farms that -if they are to make a significant contribution to global energy production- will require thousands of square miles of desert to be covered with solar collectors of one kind or another. The environmental impact of that is got to be huge. I favor much more the small-scale approach: have every single roof in the country covered by solar collectors, of one kind or another. That way environmental impact is negligible, because we are only using surfaces that have already been disturbed anyway. JdH 17:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The problems still remains that most poeple live where there is moderate solar power potential. Rather than build DC grids another approach is to generate hydrogen from the energy and then burn this to water where its needed. The article needs to include the technical challenges facing large scale solar power adoption. Lumos3 08:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I have just noticed that today a Wikipedia administrator added a POV tag in the “Psychohistory” article, which you have contributed to edit. Perhaps someone should do a little work to balance the article and remove the tag? Cesar Tort 23:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Following the AfD debate, you may wish to join in a discussion taking place at Talk:Plantlife. SP-KP 18:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I see that you reverted my edit to Rockpocket’s phrase. Though English is not my native language I must point out the fact that in her book Miller is using the metaphor of the fall of the Berlin wall. It’s not “her” wall; it’s society’s wall of silence about child abuse. Is that well understood in the current phrase? — Cesar Tort 09:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:465px-Jung 1910.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 18:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I do not understand your objection to my update to the Satellite Sisters. It is factually correct.

Hi Lumos,

You wrote:

"Keep the list here. How can you have an article on Pseudoscience without providing the reader with an idea of which subjects are consensually considered to be Pseudoscience ." Lumos3 06:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC) [11] reply

I completely agree, but have been fighting a losing battle with a number of believers in pseudoscience (one believer in homeopathy, and two - plus a sock puppet - believers in chiropractic subluxations), who don't like their beliefs being called by their right name.

The situation amounts to having an article about fruit, but not being allowed to have a list of typical fruit, simply because someone considers some particular fruit on the list to be a vegetable. Therefore they have pushed their POV on the article and gotten the list eliminated to protect their pet "vegetable," which is still a fruit.

Another illustration I have used is allowing Protestants to prevent a listing of Catholic beliefs on the Catholicism article, because they didn't like those beliefs.

As long as the list is labeled properly, it should stay, and also be copied to the other skeptic article.

BTW, I made a Popper page a few years ago. I'm also a fan. -- Fyslee 11:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks Fyslee, this looks like an interesting site. Do you know of David Deutsch's book Fabric of Reality [12] on Popper which draws the parallel between Poppers philosophy and the natural processes which have accumulated knowledge about the universe within the bodies of living things. The Taking Children Seriously movement tries to use Popper's thought in the raising of children. Lumos3 11:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

No, I'm not familiar with it, probably because it's not a subject that interests me all that much. -- Fyslee 18:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Please supply his correct year of birth, not 1975. Viewfinder 21:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Done.Its 1945. Lumos3 16:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, you contributed to discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency. It was deleted by User:Danny, but not done as an Office Action. As you contributed to the original AFD, I was wondering if you would take the opportunity to make comment at DRV. Please note that if it remains deleted then I'm not terribly fussed. However, because the community found that it was notable and should be kept and it was not slanderous (that I can see) I relisted it. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply

What did you have in mind by creating this article? Is this a definition of the verb "to pluck" or is there an encyclopedic topic coming? It is a very puzzling article. What uh... branch of Dewey decimal system would plucking fit into? I am very tempted to propose it for deletion, but that would be wrong on the day of the article's creation. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 22:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I got there through the depilation article which linked plucking to a process in glaciation, which is a very specialised usage. The main article should be to the most common use of the term in English. There is a lot of material which could potentially link here, especially in the grooming and Roman era areas. Plucking is a major human activity and an encyclopedia should cover it. As for the Dewey system I suggest 390 – Customs, etiquette, and folklore. Lumos3 22:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Do I have your permission to move these two comments to the article talk page? - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 03:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Done

BTW other uses of plucking are to "pluck up courage" and one involving to deliberately fail exams. There is extensive use of many sghades of meaning in English and should be more than enough material for an entry. Lumos3

Hi. I wanted to let you know that I have unblocked Bptdude ( talk · contribs) who I blocked earlier today for removing comments at the Talk:Stirling engine page. Apparently, those comments were placed by him in the article and moved to the discussion page by another editor (Lumos3). Bptdude felt that he didn't need to keep those comments around, and blanked them from the talk page. He's relatively new, and didn't realize that not using edit summaries and continuing to remove them would look like vandalism. So, you were all doing what seemed right...and he was doing what seemed right, but I just wanted to explain the situation to you all. Hopefully I've set him on the right track and you all can continue to create a great article. Thanks! Syrthiss 22:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

OK thanks for clearing things up. Lumos3 22:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

please see talk page for reply in a moment Simply south 11:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Is the minor change to the Guidelines better? Simply south 22:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I have just seen you reverted another editor’s sentence:

Actually, the term was not coined by Asimov. According to Gregory Benford, “The term ‘psychohistory’ was commonly used in the thirties and appears in the 1934 Webster's" [13].

Actually, the Asimov mathematical prediction stuff is stupid even for science-fiction. I am just curious why you reverted this sentence in Psychohistory page? I’d rather prefer all reference to Asimov removed from article except the original disambiguation sentence. — Cesar Tort 14:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I did not revert the edit but incorporated an informal comment into the article. Take a closer look. Lumos3 17:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry about editing your user page. I'm still figuring this whole thing out. I hadn't recognized the difference between my user talk page and user page. Feel free to remove my earlier comment from your user page. Thanks again for the advice and support.--Cplot 00:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

One more thing. I saw the edits you made to the sidereal section on Ayanamsa. I added a bit to the coordinate system discussion above about this, since it needed some clarification. Fagan must be using a different method for his sidereal system than the one I outline. His ayanamsa would be more like 39° (since the 365 days in the year is very close to the 360° in a circle they stay close to one another). Based on the outline I proposed, eventually I'd like to incorporate all of the sidereal v tropical material into the coordinate system discussion and then leave other differences discussed in the astrological section (for example the incorporation of houses of the planets in Hindu astrology). That's not a topic I'm too familar with yet, so my contribution would be only to rearrange the material that's there and try to recruit others with some knowledge to contribute. --Cplot 00:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I am listing the Orthomolecular medicine dispute at the RfArb. After I add the case, please feel free to insert your statement there. ackoz 09:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Shizhao 01:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Lumos3,

Thanks for the words of encouragement and for adding those links. That was a nice improvement. Keep up the good work. --Cplot 20:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)