Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:22, 28 July 2006

Deadline approaches in day job. Edits will be curtailed for several days. Anville 04:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Previous discussions:

• User talk:Anville/Archive1 (February 2004 to June 2005)
• User talk:Anville/Archive2 (July 2005 to February 2006)

Photosynthesis

Some time ago you helped improve the article Photosynthetic reaction centre to bring it to featured article standard. The article never became featured, probably because it's too obscure, so now I want to merge it with photosynthesis and then eventually rewrite that whole article. Few people have heard of reaction centres, but the majority of people have heard of photosynthesis, so this is probably a better candidate for a featured article. I just wondered if you would like to help merge the two articles appropriately. Thanks. --Miller 17:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to do big stuff right now (the next month or so looks busy as heck). However, I will try to keep an eye on Photosynthesis and help with the details—checking grammar and style, citing sources, etc. I agree that the main photosynthesis article is a better candidate for FA, but given the limits on article size (people on FAC tend to get more hissy than necessary when articles exceed 32Kb), it might be a good idea to keep photosynthetic reaction centre separate. The main article could have a summary of the biochemical structures involved, with a notice saying "For details, see the article photosynthetic reaction centre." This is how lots of articles handle that sort of thing. Anville 09:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

LSD

In case you didn't know - LSD is a Chemical_compounds <-- Organic compounds <-- Biochemicals <-- Monoamines <-- Tryptamines <-- Lysergamides and as such its infobox (as the info box of any chemical compound, when available of course) goes on the top of the page where it is suposed to go. As for the images - they should go to that part of the text which is relevant to them. -- Boris 02:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't aware there was actually a style rule about chemical infoboxes. Somewhere, back on the horrendously long talk page for that article, I'd read something about having the initial focus on the history and social importance, and thus keeping the chemistry infobox down in the chemistry section. I suppose that makes a sort of sense, but if there's a better way to do it, there's a better way to do it.

By the way, it's really underwhelming to title a comment "LSD" in big, bold letters and then talk about image placement and style guides. (-: Anville 09:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment from 129.105.35.146, Esq.

What are u talking about? I dont' think I've vandalized anything! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.35.146 (talk • contribs)

If you are not the person who has repeatedly removed the image of Thomas Pynchon from his article (, , ) and then replaced its caption with nonsense, but are instead someone who happens to share this person's IP address, you have my profound apologies. If you are this individual, then your actions on that article—particularly the most recent one—constitute vandalism, plain and simple. Anville 10:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice call

Nice call on the disambig page for The Giver If you haven't noticed, I enjoy "pushing the envelope" when it comes to a lot of my contributions. :) I thought for sure that the self appointed WikiPolice would have reverted my edit.

Anyhow, my 2cents. Again good call. Oarias 10:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Anville 10:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Pynchon

I see this article has been awarded feature article status. Cool! Metamagician3000 01:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Great user page

Your user page is quite entertaining. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 06:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! (smiles) Anville 12:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2

It should be looking for test4, I wonder if its a minute change to the template thats broken the regex -- Tawker 23:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the goth reference

I had a nice break, by the way. If you check out my blog you'll see some of the amusement over the Easter weekend. Metamagician3000 07:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

mary prankster

You must be from bay country. I used to go to Prankster shows back in the day, probably bumped into you if you saw them.--Josh Rocchio 03:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was up in the Northeast and only saw her when she was on tour (twice in Boston and once in New York). Anville 09:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't even say I really liked her band, but she was a cool chick, and the shows were fun for someone as young as I was for sure.--Josh Rocchio 04:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Three laws of robotics

I thought you would like to know, as both the listed maintainer of the article and original FAC nominator, that I'm voicing some serious issues with Three laws of robotics. I think it's a cool article, but the references are severely lacking and without some heavy additions it may warrant a WP:FARC. I understand you say you are on Wikibreak, but you also say to expect you back around right about now, so I felt I should at least leave you the warning. Staxringold 11:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

My comments live at Talk:Three Laws of Robotics. Anville 21:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

How can you reference movies and other books that incorporated the 3 Laws WITHOUT referencing '''''Star Trek's'' The New Generation's''' Lt. Data? He even has a positronic brain! Swervinn 20:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Because Data doesn't obey the Three Laws. He just has a positronic brain. What's so complicated about that? I could see adding a sentence somewhere which says, "In Star Trek: The Next Generation, the android Data has a positronic brain, an intentional homage to Asimov's robots; although his programming includes various moral and ethical "subroutines", he does not obey the Three Laws." This sentence might go better in References to the Three Laws of Robotics, which we made expressly so that the main Three Laws article doesn't get impossibly cluttered. Anville 18:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Banning

Hi Anville. Is it possible to ban anyone from editing Misplaced Pages who deletes or otherwise vandalizes an article? I'm thinking of a "one strike and you're out" policy.--StN 16:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume you've read the Vandalism Policy. Usually, people are given at least one warning, although if the edits they make are clearly intended to be disruptive, the normal escalation from "use the sandbox if you'd like to make further tests" to "you're out of the game" can be shortened. As far as I know, the only place where a "one strike and you're out" policy has been implemented is with the article Bogdanov Affair. That was a deliberate choice by the Arbitration Committee, and I don't think it will happen again very easily. That situation involved the people who started the Affair itself promoting their viewpoint on the Misplaced Pages and disguising their aims with sockpuppets and jargon. (They or their supporters are still at it, too.) It was an extreme case which has led to indefinite semi-protection and immediate blocking of violators — just a nasty situation. Anville 16:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hicks at MySpace

All the recent changes to the Hicks page you made.. fine, but why did you remove the line that mentions the Hicks page at MySpace which offers four of his track to hear. I often get told that some of these tracks are available at billhicks.com but not the same tracks that are offered at Hicks' myspace. Also hicks.com frequently has connections problems of one kind or another in my experience, maybe they'll get resolved one day.. but personally I wouldnt hold my breath. So can you please re-add the myspace mention and the internal link to wiki's myspace page and also the external link to hicks at myspace. I'm happy with lots of the changes you made, I'm tolerant of others but the myspace thing is something I must insist is re-added. thanking you in advance. Dirk Diggler Jnr 01:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I might have been overzealous in zapping things, or perhaps I removed it from a place where I thought it didn't fit and forgot to add it later. . . . It seems like a reasonable thing to have, so I'll see what I can do. Anville 13:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Dirk Diggler Jnr 15:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Earth in fiction (regarding Star Wars)

I'm not following your reasoning for removing my post. If the reason you removed it was because it's an "unproved theory", then I say that it's no more of a theory than the Star Wars post that you left on there: "However, the opening line to each film of "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" reveals that the story is being told from the perspective of someone who had witnessed these events. The line implies that the Star Wars galaxy exists far away from our own, therefore making Earth an actual planet within the fictional Star Wars universe."

For reference, my post:

And then there is the well-known quote from Han Solo: "You've never heard of the Millennium Falcon? It's the ship that made the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs." A parsec is defined to be the distance from which the Earth and Sun appear to be separated from one another by 1 second of an arc. Therefore, since a parsec is a unit of measurement derived from Earth, the Star Wars universe must currently have or once had a knowledge of Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.115.189 (talk • contribs)

I'm not trying to be harsh here, but I have to ask: "So what?" Like the majority of the things the Misplaced Pages says about Star Wars, it is Original Research. In a better world, we could expunge still more and actually have articles which are useful and readable. Read the policy: Misplaced Pages:No original research. Now, I'm going to go trim that section further, since it looks like I didn't trim enough. Anville 15:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. I was just curious why my post was being removed, but not the other since they were similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.115.189 (talk • contribs)

No worries. By the way, if you intend to be a long-term contributor (or if you'd just like to make Misplaced Pages your hobby), I highly recommend getting a user account. Anville 18:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Comma Johanneum for GA

Hi, I am in the middle of reviewing Comma Johanneum for GA status. It is an excellent article, but I wanted to ask you to address one thing: The phrase near the opening of the article reading "In readings containing the clause, 1 John 5:7–8 reads as follows (from the King James Version; the Comma is rendered with emphasis):" is confusing. I actually had to read the opening paragraph several times before I understood what the article is about.

Do you mean to say that 1 John 5:7–8 is a definitive example of the Comma Johanneum? Or that the Comma Johanneum appearing in that passage appears verbatim in all examples of Comma Johanneum? Can you re-write to make it more clear? Maybe:

An example of a passage that contains the clause, 1 John 5:7–8, reads as follows (from the King James Version; the Comma is rendered with emphasis):

Let me know what you think. Aguerriero (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That sentence has actually bothered me before, though I had read it as more awkward than unclear. This is why it helps to bring in new editing eyes! I have edited that passage, hopefully making the meaning more transparent. Anville 17:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Tranhumanism

Any comments on my plea on the talk page? You always seem to have a cool head, so any thoughts from you would be appreciated. Metamagician3000 03:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with your sentiments, broadly speaking. Recently, I have come to feel that I've been watching a tempest in a teapot — one which to the people in the teapot looks like a tsunami. I believe the article has improved since it made FA (though of course edits made since the last time I looked at "Criticisms" may have deranged everything). One reason I had thought of suggesting for splitting off a Criticisms of Transhumanism article was to get the arguments into a different place: if everybody could agree that the current revision of the main article was at least factually accurate and based upon verifiable sources, then we could go split hairs, chop logic and engrave tombstones on some other page. Meanwhile, the main article itself could stay nice and stable, serving its purpose for the people who aren't already flashing with heat lightning.

I have grown more sensitive over this past year to what constitutes Original Research; I believe I think about the subtleties more than lots of other Wikipedians I've run into. Maybe that's because I like to play in areas where the sort of OR I might do here would use exactly the same type and quality of reasoning as it would in any other venue — Science Fiction Studies or a paperback from MIT Press, say. I think I stayed on the legitimate side of the line with Three Laws of Robotics, for example, but I know many places where I could've crossed that line. (One reason I'm writing less new material now than I was last fall is that, hey, a big part of me wants to do Original things.) I get the distinct feeling that the heavy hitters on Transhumanism may all be capable of slipping in the same way.

Maybe everyone should just back off, read something new and work on different articles for a while. The sound and the fury need to go somewhere else, and I'm trying to think of a good place to take them. Anville 04:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Saved thoughts on quantum theory

Copied from Talk:Quantum Theory Parallels to Consciousness:

The opinion of the mainstream scientific community (i.e., just about everybody except Roger Penrose) 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 steel, which depend upon electrons forming a metallic bond, which you can only truly understand with quantum theory, etc. If the brain is quantum in the same sense as the Chrysler Building, 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 Max Tegmark of MIT, 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 Eddington 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.

Anville 17:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't spend to much time refuting articles like this. It isn't very effective. --Philosophus 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. Anville 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! :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 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! Anville 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— Abaca 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. Anville 03:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The Giver

Hi, Anville. I'm sorry to make myself disagreeable. :-( But I'm having some thoughts of listing The Giver for featured article review at WP:FAR. 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. Bishonen | talk 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. Anville 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 Talk:The Giver 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. Bishonen | talk 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. Anville 14:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did put a note on Talk:The Giver and got a resounding nothing so far. It's listed on FAR 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. Bishonen | talk 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, Anville 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? Byrgenwulf 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

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

"A subtle program in psychological warfare?" Oh, sirrah, you give me too much credit. (-: Anville 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 Abaca 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. Anville 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. Byrgenwulf 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.) Anville 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? Byrgenwulf 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 Help:Displaying a formula. It looks like you could hack the alignment using Wiki-markup tables or the matrix environment (see Fractions, matrices, multilines). I found a brief discussion about labeling equations over here, but I've had no luck finding anything better. Perhaps the people over at WikiProject Mathematics 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 Supersymmetric solution of the hydrogen atom, which will basically be a conversion of these class notes 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.

Anville 15:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I tried out the matrix environment on the RQM page. Is that closer to the way you wanted? Anville 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. Byrgenwulf 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 John Baez's website really made me feel the lack of my category-theoretic knowledge. Anville 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 unfashionable 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 Galois?

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. Byrgenwulf 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 Bogdanov regime, 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? Anville 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"). Byrgenwulf 19:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Philosophus and I added some language to the proposed Fringe theories guideline 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 April Fool's Day, as "News of the Weird" or during "slow news days". (See junk food news, silly season, komkommertijd.)

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 Mediation Cabal attempt 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 RfC; I'm not quite sure whether to file this one under Maths, science and technology or Religion and philosophy (since Langan and Dr. L have indeed repeatedly denied that the Whizzbang was science, when it was convenient to do so). Anville 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. Byrgenwulf 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". Anville 21:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hillman/Dig

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