Jump to content

User talk:Pjacobi/Archive2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Pjacobi

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pjacobi (talk | contribs) at 12:49, 31 December 2005 (→Question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archived discussions



on semi-break

I'm taken a semi-break from Wikipedia. Answers may take somewhat longer than normal. And I'll try not to look at my watchlist. --Pjacobi 09:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:RfA

See User_talk:Garzo, where I gave him a heads up. Nominations must be accepted on the subpage and all the questions must be answered before nominations can be placed on the WP:RfA page per the new policy. Once Garzo has accepted and answered the questions, he can place the subpage on WP:RfA and adjust the closing time/date. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 00:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK - it doesn't make much sense to argue any longer about this point, but out of curiousity, where is this new policy? As I've seen Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate my first thought that someone fell in love with the technical possibility to "automate" the process. But it's surely a policy page. --Pjacobi
All of it is in the instructions - we modified it to reflect that in order to place a subpage on the RfA page, it had to be accepted and teh questions answered. Yes, this is relatively new policy - it gained wide support with no opposition on the RfA talk page, so it was implemented a week or two ago. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 00:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation. --Pjacobi 00:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Small answer

Thanks for trying to inject some sanity into both sides here. It's greatly appreciated, and I'll keep your "but"s in mind. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 00:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer has been accepted. Please place any evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer/Evidence Fred Bauder 01:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum indeterminacy

Please see and comment on Talk:Quantum indeterminacy#Dispute status of this article. Thanks --CSTAR 18:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actor model, mathematical logic, and quantum physics

Do you think that Actor model, mathematical logic, and quantum physics is a candidate to be sent up for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion? DV8 2XL 16:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, but I didn't explored the issue in depth. It has many problems, starting with the lemma, but I'm not sure about deleteability. Hmm, taking this search:
the WP:NOR may kick in.
Pjacobi 17:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider voting. Thank-you. DV8 2XL 01:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non compactness of Wikipedia

Since Wikipedia is not compact, I suppose we can have an infinite sequence of oddities converging to infinity. --CSTAR 22:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let us learn some language, which is not widely used by cranks, request a Wikipedia in that language, and start over there. Perhaps Laal. Or Polari, as it would be easier to learn, but wouldn't the cranks follow us into that Wikipedia? --Pjacobi 07:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

167.206.112.86

I had blocked 167.206.112.86 indefinitely myself in the past, but then unblocked it as per request of User:Kyla. Whereas all anonymous edits are trash, there seems to be at least one (sort of) legitimate user at this IP, which is supposedly the IP of Kyla's school. --Pjacobi 16:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this school Kyla's only source for an internet connection? Unfortunately, this IP address has a two year history of nothing but vandalism. Perhaps she or he could cooperate with us by providing the time stamps of past acts of vandalism to her system administrator or escalate this to the proper authorities at his/her school so we do not need to block this IP. Hall Monitor 17:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask her in e-Mail. --Pjacobi 17:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From a new admin

Hi Peter! Apparently, thank you messages have gone out of fashion. However, I do want to thank you for nominating me for RfA. I confess that it wasn't something that I was thinking about, but, when you suggested it to me, I liked it. I hope that you will be able to help me out if I get stuck with anything. Let me know if there's anything I can help you with. Thanks. --Gareth Hughes 10:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure, Wikipedia now has a valuable admin more. --Pjacobi 10:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Welcome Message

Hello Pjacobi,

I came to you because you are most likely an online admin(you blocked the last IP) I was wondering if you could change the welcome template to this, note the inclusion of the sandbox.

This is the new text: *Wikipedia:Sandbox Don't forget to practice editing and creating articles in the sandbox before editing real articles.

and this is the whole message:

Welcome

Hello Pjacobi/Archive2, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Don't forget to practice editing and creating articles in the sandbox before editing real articles. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

END TEMPLATE


Thanks, Prodego talk 13:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Gee, it's like getting married all over again. How romantic.--CSTAR 14:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-)

Hi Prodego,

I'd think this should go the same way as all changes to protected pages: discuss is at Template talk:Welcome and if a consensus emerges, the template will be changed.

Pjacobi 14:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Digamma and Linear B

Hi Pjacobi, Sorry for the delay in replying. I've had a look through my books and can't corroborate the claim but I'm no expert in the field. Robin Osborne in Greece in the Making (Routledge, 1996) asserts that the spoken language link is the only connection that survived between Mycenean and Archaic Greece and that the written syllabary was entirely lost (p.30). He goes on to say (p107) that the entire alphabet came from Phoenicia in the ninth century and that despite local variations, they "manifestly take their forms from the Semitic scripts used by the Phoenicians". Maybe the editor meant that the letter was ascribed to an existing sound in Greek rather than being derived from an LB predecessor. Also, isn't "basileus" the Greek work for king? adamsan 20:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you very much for your support on my Rfa. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Wanniyala-Aetto

Hi, thanks for protecting Sinhala. Could you also protect Wanniyala-Aetto? Thanks. --Hottenot

So this is where you run to Hottentot? You should be banned for violating the 3 reverts rule many times over as a member.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.101.225.160 (talk • contribs) Pjacobi 07:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Both combattants blocked for 24h --Pjacobi 07:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhala

Hi, what's up with this? On the face of it, looks like you protected an article you were involved in a dispute over. I don't see much wrong with either version, so why the edit warring and protection? --Tony SidawayTalk 10:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know, whether "Sinhala" or "Sinhalese" is the correct version, so I can't edit-war about this issue. Anyway, the right (or better) version should be the lemma and all uses in the text should match the form in the lemma. I assume this is an undisputed policy.
But as the two combattants are blocked now, perhaps it's best to unprotect.
Pjacobi 10:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler's P

You noticed the dearth of links to do with the Reichskonkordat on my famekeeper Rfc page some time ago . I notice it gets worse with time , all the de-coupling of german stuff ,and I wonder if you think this a tolerable situation ? EffK 03:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NASA's results on Hydrino's

You deleted most of the abstract, that stated that the results were NOT verified by NASA, using BlackLightPower's own device.

NASA is the proof that is weilded about like a sword, as proof that results were verifed: But so much of scientific reproducibility was missing, the abstract needs to be reproduced in its whole. Its a matter of Accuracy:

Isnt Wikipedia for "presenting each point of view accurately."

"It means citing verifiable[NASA Abstracts], authoritative sources whenever possible[NASA], especially on controversial topics.[Hydrino Theory]"

The other verifications fall along similar lines: The company states that the results were verfied by a group in Germany, where Dr Mills gave a talk. No results were avaible for them.

Do unbalenced points of view beomce truth AFTER you reapeat them enough? I need practice at this stuff before I take on something really controversial.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation (talk • contribs) Pjacobi 11:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is most unclear what you are talking about.
Confirmation of results. ( or lack thereof )
An encyclopedia article isn't just a bunch of quotes stitched together but should try to give an accurate summary of topic.
That is why on the talk page I asked about qualifying 'sucessfull' results.
I've shortened the NASA result, because it seems most unimportant to me: nine years ago and nothing resulted of it.
Pjacobi 11:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason it has any importance whatsoever, is that: Its the ONLY independant study that has been pubslished/abstracted. All the rest is basically propiganda.
This is not in anyway an enecyclopedia. Any 'expert' would have had this article deleted years ago. Just keep whacking at it, until either someone cleans out all the rest of the garbage, or someone actually puts it up for delettion. --Artoftransformation 22:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If by now I understand you correctly, there are some points to clarify:
  • I'm not a supporter of the Hydrino theory and I'm rather clueless why you may think I am.
  • The Hydrino article is by all practical means undeletable. The theory, without accessing its validity, is well beyond Wikipedia's notability trhreshoild
  • It's perfectly possible to have fine Wikipedia articles on strange theories. We even have a sort of template for it: Green Cheese Model of Lunar Composition. Or see Space opera in Scientology doctrine.
Pjacobi 22:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks, Pjacobi, for your message. I have no hard feelings. I know I'm quite hypersensitive regarding some topics, after what has transpired between April and October. Thanks for your appreciation. Of course, there is nothing bad in respectfully disagreeing on things. Cheers, Str1977 22:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate History , Reichskonkordat

dear Pjacobi , I regret to ask you to witness the rapidity with which I am considered a censorable contributor to the history of the Reichskonkordat , or much of anything related to history . As you know there is nothing new in this, and I am currently bemused as to how other than a formal resolution of this may be possible. That is also not new . EffK 22:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey EffK, your sometimes rather disturbing behaviour doesn't help your cause of presenting a critical account of the Roman Catholic Church (where criticism is deserved). Starting with the use of multiple usernames.
In some selected cases, by ArbCom ruling or on a voluntary basis, "edit partnerships" were tried. An experienced Wikipedia editor which is uninvolved in topics you want to edit will team up with you, trying to argue for your changes. In exchange you would be required from reverting yourself etc. I don't know whether there are currently volunteers for this job.
Also you may want to look at WP:AMA for advice and help.
Pjacobi 22:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Like yeah. Actually my usernames only changed because I lose Cookies and frankly why should I trust an email to Jimbo when he doesnt stand by me as honest anyway . I am in the awkward position of saying the things that no one else is prepared or able to enunciate. You may find this disturbing, as do others , but it doesnt make you right to criticise me , or justify you not saying them , or Str whitewashing . The suggestion you make is reasoneable and I was nor aware of it- indeed I have needed the help and never was it offered . I am losing patience with being abused , called paranoid/ crazy . But have a pop anytime , eh ? Consider whom you attack , I suggest . I have reason- you do not .

EffK 03:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you memorize or write down your password, you can always re-login and use your old account again. If you set an e-mail address you even can recover from forgotten passwords. --Pjacobi 07:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pjacobi, despite EffK's accusations. I have looked at his edits with an open mind and even retained some (smaller edits). However, alomost everything was either off-topic, or inaccurate or POV. It was basically a piece of editorializing matching in quality to the article he linked to (about Ludwig Stiegler), whose author apparently has no clue whatsover about current German politics or the Weimar Republic - calling the Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold a right-wing group resembles either User:68.57.33.91, who calls the DNVP left-wing or exposes his own political position as being so much to the left, that everyone else must be right-wing. Unfortunately, that's the kind of literature EffK feeds on. Str1977 23:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My frustration at your apparent equanimity over Nuremburg deletion may have read more criticism into your reply than you intended. I am disappointed though . You very much weakened your initial position as to content importance , did you not? Str1977 's apparent reasonableness is belied by his editing actions , and I would therefore ask you straight if these really seem acceptable or as he says . You know of this because I dragged you in after you commented so long ago . I feel that I am constrained into hyper reaction by the editor's very long and continuous malign actions, and that you here give me no credit for my good faith , or attempts to contribute healthy articles . So my hasty disquiet is replaced by this analysis of your inaction and equanimity at loss of content. EffK 04:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
@FK: Yes, I was more sympathetic to your agenda in the past, as a superficial comparison to the de: articles gave the impression, that criticism at Pope Pius XI were toned down here. But after having read around more, my impression did change, as the information mostly was only distributed into other articles. There may still be a minor NPOV problem within this area, but by now I'd prefer to work on it with contributors willing to accept the co-operative spirit of Wikipedia. In the moment you just aren't cold blooded enough to help your own cause.
@Str1977: I generally don't have problem with leftist editors (make your own conclusions about this), but their participation in Wikipedia generally depends on learning that Wikipedia isn't a leftist project (in the European sense, for some US-Americans it is communism anyway). Also http://www.wsws.org isn't a totally wacko source (minus the topic of AIDS, where it is a totally wacko source). Only thinking that it is a NPOV source is, sorry to say this, stupid.
Pjacobi 07:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Pjacobi, I don't have a problem either with leftist editors either. Leftist positions are not foreign to me and some of my opinions could be termed leftist, though currently I don't think left and right to be really meaningful anymore. This might change, if left and right takes up new defintions. (All this from a European and German perspective). The problem comes when user, regardless of their views, seem unable to cooperate and put themselves on a high horse of political or moral superiority (and start to call names, as EffK has done in the past). I also was shocked by the article EffK linked to (the page had "socialist" in the title), first it was the typical onesidedness in papers influenced very much my ideology, but the Reichsbanner thing really blew out my ceiling. Some (mainly conservative or libertarian) Americans argue that the Nazis were leftists. They are wrong of course, but at least they make a reasonable argument (collectivism = left, liberty = right). To just label an organisation right-wing without appearently knowing anything about it, probably only because of an allergical reaction to the morpheme "Reichs-", is just way out. Of course, that's not EffK's fault, as he didn't write the article. But he shouldn't be so credulous to onesided articles that play well to his pre-conceptions. We all have to be careful about that. Anyway, the article, just as IMHO his recent edit, did not add anything substantial to the article. Cheers, Str1977 10:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reichskonkordat nonsense

Pjacobi-Are you really suggesting the validity of revert on material relevant to the Rkkdt from the Nuremburg Trials? You are most in error in taking this position , which you should certainly have , in doubt , separated from anything extra, and defended. this is not left and right, but open or closed . i reject your charges, howqsoever nicely put. I understand you do not wish to persist , and I therefore am forced to note your unreasonable position. EffK 11:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New ?- The Great Scandal

In order to achieve Robert McClenon's aim for an article to catch all the surrounding off-topics, I wrote up The Great Scandal because Hitler's Pope was coralled into one corner of the topic . I come to say this because straight-way , str1977 determines he should obliterate all the linkage from this new article out to its facets . Neither you nor anyone would thereby see it . Up to you how you judge it, I see that I have zero influence with personnel . you commented , and the issues which brought you to comment, are un-resolved. I do not consider my personality an issue or of any relevant magnitude , but it could be a justification were there no other . EffK 16:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very bad idea. I nominated it for deletion. See rationale and discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Scandal. --Pjacobi 20:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do suggest a better idea , and implement it. EffK 19:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please show restrain

I would appreciate if you show some restrain when deleting content from Prem Rawat that is properly sourced. If you keep listening to the atrocity stories made by a couple of obesessed apostates, you will be making value judgements that are misleading.

You did a search in Google and based on the results of the search, you decided that the material about the UN 60th Anniversary was not appropriate for inclusion. You should have asked before pulling the trigger. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 04:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist from deleting content because you think it is a frabrication and without explaining your deletion. Either provide some references that support your point, or stop. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you discussing article content disputes on a user talk page? --Pjacobi 15:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My complaint is not about content but about your intervention on that article. I have removed the content related bullet points. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elerner RfC

I have added a request for comment on Eric Lerner's editing, at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Elerner. You may want to look at it if you have a spare moment. –Joke137 00:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hercolubus

I can feel the pull already... --CSTAR 16:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap! I try to vfd afd it, but I fear, it wouldn't work. --Pjacobi 16:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The version present when I checked recently seemed NPOV enough. If it really is a popular folk belief anywhere, where's the problem? --Christopher Thomas 17:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, checking the edit history, it looks like content has only been sane since 17:20 (rewrite by Wikipediatrix).--Christopher Thomas 17:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It looks better now. I'm not sure , though, if it is really a popular folk belief anywhere. Rabolu was a Colombian crank with abolutely no scientific training.--CSTAR

Heck, if you want an example of the absurd...

Check out the disclaimer on the subcategory Category:People without hands. I mean, on a serious level, I can see why it's there, but... wow. Melchoir 23:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH that category has some logic, as those people are mostly known and notable as people without hands. But amputess is with some exception categorization of somthing irrelevant to their notability. --Pjacobi 08:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer Arbitration case

The Arbitration case against Lightbringer, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer, to which you contributed, has closed. The decision is that Lightbringer is hereby banned indefinitely from editing articles and talk-pages related to Freemasonry (the closeness of the relation is to be interpretted by any sysop as they see fit, regardless of the article's title), and is placed on personal attack parole for six months from now (to expire on the 24 of May 2006). If Lightbringer violates the Freemasonry ban, a sysop may ban them for up to a week, and after five such bans, for up to a year. If they violate the personal attack parole, a sysop may ban them for up to a week.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Philosophy (navigation) RfC

We have a content dispute issue. Please comment on the talk page. This message is being sent out to everyone who didn't vote Delete in the last TfD of the template, ie: User:SimonP User:Jules.lt User:Pjacobi User:thames User:Michael User:Christopherparham User:FranksValli User:Silence User:Andymussell User:Moosh88 User:Rick Norwood User:Izehar

Thanks

Thanks for the quick speed of gravity edits, they were just what was needed. linas 05:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2 has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2/Workshop. Fred Bauder 22:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Würdest du mal

...hier vorbei schauen? Danke dir. --ST ○ 17:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hast Du gesehen was es hier alles an Bildern gibt? Der Bilderbereich der englischen Wikipedia ist eine einzige riesige Urheberrechtsverletzung, ein Unrechtsbewusstsein ist nicht vorhanden. Wegen Aussichtslosigkeit halte ich mich da raus. --Pjacobi 17:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
LOL - bis die erste Klage Erfolg hat, dann kommen sie gerannt. Danke dir jedenfalls. --ST ○ 17:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New proposed portal page designed for Philosophy

Template:Philosophy portal

Hi. The philosophy navigation template has been merged into a new portal page, as you desired, and it is ready for comment. (It's about 90% complete, and there won't be any blank column space when we are through). Have a look! Go for it! 06:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for common sense, fairness and down to earth attitude

Though I do not always agree with you, I consider all your contributions and comments that I have seen defensible, fair, based on common sense, and on a down to earth attitude. Thanks. Andries 12:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Thanks for the feedback. I fear some of this impression stems from my preference, to let things go if there is severe resistance, even if I think, that I am right and the state of an article is poor. But OTOH it may work out in the end, as I regularily re-vist the pages in long intervals. --Pjacobi 08:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

yes I am using the javascript thing. God light mode. thanks for picking it up on that edit. I am fixing up my own program that does not have the problem but for now is there a thing like it that does not have a problem. My program will not have the problem because it would be more work to add the problem!!! --Adam1213 Talk + 12:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Philosophy navigation linkspam

You may want to weigh in here.—jiy (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EffK is forced to Abandon a Corrupted Wikipedia

I refer you to my response of a few moments ago at 15 December [[1]],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005 EffK 01:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

help requested to solve unhealthy dynamics between believers and apostates

You may be interested to see that the article on Sathya Sai Baba now shows similar traits as the article on Prem Rawat. Rebuttal and surrebuttal by believers and apostates (mainly me) and there seems no way to stop the ever increasing controversy with counter-counter arguments. Every deletion is restored by the opposing factions, so the controversy section of the article grows and grows. Your help and comments are appreciated. See talk:Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 02:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please come and take a look. The latest exchange in the talk page is most revealing as it pertains to the reputability of sources used[2], and the numerous problems with the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look on Monday, but I'm rather tight with time, sorry. --Pjacobi 21:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tachyons

Some anon keeps adding text about Aasis Vinayak's paper on tachyon mass, which as you pointed out has not been peer reviewed yet. Its been added twice since you reverted it. Since the edits are coming from different IP's each time, its a bit difficult to leave messages telling them to cease and desist. Any thoughts?

Whoops forgot to sign! Gershwinrb 17:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Astigmatism

File:Astigmatism 2 eyes illus.png
Aspherical cornea (top, exagerated) and normal eye below.

You deleted my graphic from Astigmatism on 12 Sept. Your "Wrong image removed" comment is vague. I'm happy to make changes based on logical arguments. See the review history of my POTD image for root canal.

Similar astigmatism images for reference:

I've readded the image and await your substantial justification.

jk 18:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've ansered at Talk:Astigmatism#Image

Question

Which section of Talk:Scalar field theory relates to this edit [3]? Fred Bauder 20:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone is busy, I can try to track this down. On a related note, I notice that Pjacobi is on semi-leave, so if help is needed on related issues, let me know. I am disheartened to be warring with another related pseudoscience editor who has gone from 0 to 60 on the offensiveness scale in no time at all, and so am interested in helping out the trustworthy editors as best I can. linas 01:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks to Linas for taking up this time-consuming and draining struggle.
@Fred: See
Reddi can't tell one Lagrangian from another if no one gives him a label, but he cut'n'pastes like hell everything that merely sounds connected.
Pjacobi 12:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pjacobi/Archive2&oldid=33372318"