User:Nukeh/Archive2

Change handle to real name
= Doug Youvan as in doug@youvan.com (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WP Donors
To find a (non-published) email address to the WP corporation, involving an idea for a clause that could be placed in the Will and Testamentary of potential donors. - Doug Youvan (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Contact User:Mikegodwin. His email is on the top of his user page.  Gtstricky Talk or C 15:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - done - Doug Youvan (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hydrogen
Thanks for the offer to help! I moved your misplaced comment to chronological order at the bottom of the WP:FAR and responded there. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The FAR can be passed as soon as the article is sourced; we're waiting :-) General communication would be at Talk:Hydrogen, but the FAR should be notified when work is done, so reviewers can declare Keep or Remove.  If you read the instructions at the top of the WP:FAR page, you'll get a sense of the purpose of that page relative to the talk page of the article.  There's no firm deadline on FAR, but we'd like to declare this one a Keep as soon as we can, so those of us who work at FAR can move on to other articles.  Thanks again !!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

ITN headline
I wanted to thank you for trying to help with ITN. A lot of times people try to post a headline, it gets rejected, and they never show up again, which is a real shame. While I think it's clear what you proposed is interesting, it is not quite what we do at ITN. I really do hope that you keep up with us at ITN/C, as someone with your scientific/mathematical background has been sorely missing there. Cheers! --  Grant  .  Alpaugh  02:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your concern, but I am not discouraged at all. What concerns me is that the general public is no longer educated even at the level of high school physics. The political debates are sophisticated, but the basic science is missing. (The two are possibly related by war.) On the subject of peer review, I can recall one of my first papers being peer reviewed by openly walking reviews from Melvin Calvin's office to two other Berkeley faculty.  I can't really comment further, because later reviews involve living people.  I now no longer read anything that is not freely available on line. The public funding of Pubmed, and mandated public publications, now seems to be hung up in copyright - PubMed siding with the journals.  Also, there are other things that can be done with our ITN/C discussion, because it is now part of WP's history. Doug Youvan (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * With due respect, I think you are greatly underestimating the sophistication of your ITN proposal or greatly overestimating your ability to communicate it simply. --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  05:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll try to do the calculation in the simplest manner possible with cancellation of units.Doug Youvan (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC) There is a rough discussion now on the bottom of this page: http://gewp.org/ - I'm more familiar with editing there and can fix it faster. Doug Youvan (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC). Still better yet, the calculation is now here: Talk:Energy_crisis under "Benchmark math and unit conversion".Doug Youvan (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editing
Please stop your campaign of disruptive editing to articles related to creationism. Your edits so far seem to be attempting to prove a WP:POINT, which is explicitly discouraged by Wikipedia policy. You have already been blocked once, and it is likely to happen again if you continue on your present course. silly rabbit (  talk  ) 00:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please find another scientist for these articles to discuss science with me. My fear is that an unsuspecting person - who views WP as authoritative - might think these articles are written by scientists.  This reflects poorly on Wikipedia. Doug Youvan (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss in detail your reasons for removing the entire section from Evolution as fact and theory. Please do so without mentioning any irrelevant nonsense about the arrow of time or thermodynamics. If you revert once more, I will report you for disruption. silly rabbit (  talk  ) 03:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This particular article lacks any scientific guidance and could be mistaken as fact (by a student) given the authority and reputation of Wikipedia. Such articles defame Wikipedia. These articles appear to be controlled by only three editors, none of whom appear to be scientists.  The section removed had no references and was a soapbox. Hard physics is prohibited by the controlling editors.  No science-based counter arguments have been cited by the controlling editors. No encyclopedic quality references have been used by the controlling editors.  Said articles should be deleted in their entirety to maintain Wikipedia's good name.Doug Youvan (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In a word, no. And it is not your place to delete the work of other wikipedia editors without giving proper reason and gaining consensus. Redrocket (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. HrafnTalkStalk 04:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That evolution and panspermia have differences in theory and fact will be news to NASA - as they are funded to do the latter. Doug Youvan (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Filll

User:Silly rabbit

User:Hrafn

quod erat demonstrandum

Doug Youvan (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)