Talk:Douglas Youvan/Archive 2

From: Archive 1, the following three sections are still active, and insertion into the article should be considered. Noncanonical (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * One of these sections does not exist at all in the archive, and the other two (signatures removed by Noncanonical) have not been commented on since October 2010, and are not relevant for improvement of the article. Since they are in the archive, I removed them. -- Crowsnest (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

ISBN To Do
As an editor, I am unclear as to how the hyperlinked ISBN numbers in the External Links section of this article should thread to sources. Wikipedia has a Special Page for ISBN look up. It appears that Yahoo Shopping and Google Market Place are threaded through, but Amazon books are not. Both "Questions of a Christian Biophysicist" and "As Velocity Approaches Light Speed, P Becomes Equivalent to NP" are on Amazon in Kindle format. At the present time, those two external links go to websites hosting the books in HTML format.

Noncanonical (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Relativistic P versus NP Solution
As per WP:PSTS, secondary sources are required before we can insert the following information into this article:

Youvan has also made an attempt to solve the P versus NP problem by using Einstein's equations on time dilation with the Twin Paradox, substituting 2 computers for the twins. He further suggests that such "NP computers" already exist in the form of interferometers which "calculate" a Fourier transform almost instantaneously. Noncanonical (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Help
Crowsnest has just made major deletions to this Article and this Discussion Page. I wish to step aside from editing this article and have an Admin check to see whether those deletions fit Wikipedia policy. If references were up for months and readers see that they are now gone, Youvan's work is defamed, and we are dealing with a living person who heads a foundation that can be financially hurt by such an appearance. If you look on Commons, you will see a Crowsnest attempt to delete a figure that Youvan uploaded that established the earliest priority for the suggestion of Intelligent Design, Creation, or complex prebiotic evolution in the genetic code. A derivative of that figure is the fourth figure down in WP's Genetic Code article. Youvan is also a Christian Apologist. Crowsnest's efforts seem to aimed at expunging him from Wikipedia on religious grounds. That was the suggestion of the editor who defended Youvan's figure on Commons. Youvan also has several multi-million dollar settlement agreements. There is a possibility that Crowsnest is affiliated with one of those parties who have settled. That must be investigated. I suggest that this article be reverted to yesterday's fullest copy, and that page protection should be granted to this article and discussion page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Godwin 's successor should be informed of this incident immediately.Noncanonical (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Some thoughts:

--  Skysmurf   (Talk)  21:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The deletions Crowsnest made to the article itself do not appear to be major.
 * The parts of the talk page that he removed are indeed in the archive and indeed not commented on since 2010. Maybe there should be a clearer link to the archives (hint: there are templates for that and proper archiving procedures involve the use of those) but there's no point in simply copying things from the archive back to the active talk page without commenting on them in a useful way. A talk page is for discussing the article, not the topic itself (Wikipedia is not a forum or a fan site).
 * On your own user page you indicate that you are affiliated with Youvan. That means there is a possible conflict of interest there. You might want to seek dispute resolution and let others take it from there.
 * Since you're referring to settlements and Mike Godwin and stuff, I pre-emptively urge you to please read WP:LEGAL.

Help, 2 Dutch People!
What's the odds of having another Dutch person show up to help (see previous section, above)? After I have caved in a lot on these External Links, placing them now in as 3 books without hyperlinks and only ISBN numbers, Crowsnest has once again deleted this material, calling it "spam" in the edit tag. I disagree and want either the external links or the books restored. I also want to reiterate that he attempted to delete one of Youvan's figures on Commons, only to be told by another editor that he should not be carrying the Creation-Darwin debate into another matter. Crowsnest has a long running fight going with Youvan, whom he stalks. Noncanonical (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What's the odds of having another Dutch person show up to help (see previous section, above)?
 * That probably depends on the time of day (time zones and all that) ;-)
 * Having said that, I must admit that I find his last revert somewhat questionable. A list of books/publications on an article about an author/scientist is perfectly normal. My first recommendation is to read about dispute resolution. This link should give you an idea of what your options are, such as asking for a third opinion or going to the dispute resolution noticeboard (probably in that order!). Good luck, --  Skysmurf   (Talk)  00:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone might want to look into this: RIP Doug Youvan?
"As Youvan's Executor, I have the responsibility of carrying out his instructions. He directed me to use his home computer, log on as him, and enter a DOD. His DOD is 5/20/2012 in the Philippines."

This was made with Youvan's account at the Wikimedia Commons, and it is entirely plausible for reasons I don't care to go into in public. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 01:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what exactly is your point?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He died? Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 17:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If he died, we need a reliable source to support it, and that odd post at Commons doesn't cut it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why I said Someone might want to look into this, and put a question mark at the end, rather than Please update the article. I'm saying it's plausible enough, both on the basis of that post and what I know about the guy. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 18:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, perhaps someone will. I may even do it if I have some time. I apologize if my tone in this conversation was a bit snarky. It just initially struck me as truly weird.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's okay, it was kind of weird, but for whatever faults he may have had, he does not strike me as the kind of person to announce his own death. I've not found anything in the media yet, but I've got a Google Alert for his name set up for when/if obituaries show up. In the meantime, I'm working on archiving his online presence. It's the least that I can do. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 19:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the last part means (archiving and the least I can do), but the Google alert sounds good.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By "archiving his online presence", I meant this. By "the least that I could do", I meant "a guy who showed kindness to me deserves to have his online presence saved for posterity".

"PS I am sort of at end life, taking OC every day, with a son 50 years younger than me, now age 7. That's my real motivation.  I would like him to know who his dad was."

So there it is. I hope that this article still exists in a few years where his son might be able to find it. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See commons:User talk:Doug youvan for the latest; is associated with Youvan. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

P versus NP Tally
From http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm "[Equal]: In January 2012, Douglas Youvan established P=NP in a certain model (that seems to allow time travelling). The Kindle edition of his book "As Velocity Approaches Light Speed, P Becomes Equivalent to NP for Computations Using Zero-Mass Particles" is available for sale at amazon.com." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.133.196 (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Please remove notability banner - moved in from Prosfilaes Talk Page - Shows motive for Libel
Figure 2 in the Youvan article is figure 4 in the genetic code article. Based on that single discovery (one of many), Youvan is notable because he has contributed to the Central Dogma of Biology: "DNA makes RNA makes Protein". Take a look at the genetic code article. The first 2 figures are historic. Figure 3 shows a molecular basis of disease. Figure 4 sets direction for future research. The banner itself is defamatory to the extent that it is one of the first impressions of Youvan a reader receives. Given Youvan continues to raise money, it could drive off contributors to his foundation or his ability to raise grant money. I believe his (present day) fund raising has topped $100M, so any damage at all is costly.


 * I don't care about his foundation. We are not your publicity arm. It can't be defamatory because it's not falsifiable; Wikipedia has absolute right to consider anyone notable or non-notable they want. The rest of the stuff you can take to the talk page of the article, but I don't believe I'm the only person exhausted by the way that Doug Youvan has played Wikipedia and Commons.


 * To repeat: We are not your publicity arm. Claiming that our actions in questioning whether we should have an article on him are defamatory is ignorant, offensive and wrong.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So, your interest in the article is because "Doug Youvan has played Wikipedia and Commons" rather than his contributions to science? With so few people editing Wikipedia now, as the project is mature, is this the encyclopedia's future? If you "don't care about his foundation", do you at least care about doing damage to WMF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.133.196 (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems to be the past, present and future of Wikipedia to be abused by people more concerned about themselves then building the encyclopedia. Protecting Wikipedia from being their playground is not doing damage to the WMF.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am very concerned about this article and have asked for help at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard. Ditch &#8733;  04:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As someone who is fond of Youvan and has defended him in many contexts, including defending his work against deletion over at the Wikimedia Commons, being the guy to archive his online presence (see above) and possibly saving this article from deletion, you are not doing Youvan any favours by 1) making shit up about how much funding he has 2) making thinly-veiled legal threats. Please stop doing that. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 19:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Creationist?
According to Youvan's own website Youvan has a firm belief in Biblical Creation as per Genesis 1-2. Does this make him a creationist? If so do we need to add a category to the article? Theroadislong (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The people at the DR generally agreed he wasn't notable as a creationist; whether that deserves the category or not, I don't know.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Help Me
archive from here up. Then I will be inserting some secondary references, below. IDK how to edit them into the article. Once inserted, I think the secondary reference banner should be removed. Three references from Nobel Lectures are forthcoming, below. Frank Layden (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)