User talk:DrTorstenHenning

UN/LOCODE
maybe you like to knwo that for all(?) US places redirects of the form UN/LOCODE:USNYC are implemented - if they have an WP article. I think this would make linking from outside to WP easier. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * saw your entry at: HVV the city part of UN/LOCODE for Hvidovre/Denmark (DK HVV) ... here it is not that bad, but it's not allways a city. maybe you have another another idea? I have not. "location part" "local part" is all not correct, I think.
 * I added more redirects, e.g. for SE. How to see redirects by country see the intro at Talk:UN/LOCODE Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "Second part (below the country level)" would probably be most correct. However, since these two HVV are cities, I think we should stick with "city part" for the time being.(?) --DrTorstenHenning 13:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to revert myself on that, the footnote on page 2 of the UN/LOCODE manual calls these three letters the "location code". --DrTorstenHenning 15:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete
You recently tagged Fax Information Services for speedy delete as advertising. While this is certainly a reason to delete, it's not a reason to speedy delete. I enourage you to take the article to VfD. See Guide to Votes for deletion for help (or you can ask me) in doing so. Thanks! --Dmcdevit·t 09:27, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * You didn't finish the nomination. You forgot to give it a heading, or list it in the daily log (the most important part, because otherwise no one will see it and vote on it). I've finished it for you. In the future, look over the instructions to be sure you did it right. Also, please do not remove comments from your talk page without comment. It is seen as hostile or uncivil. --Dmcdevit·t 20:40, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was under the mistaken impression that the VFD Log was created automatically. And of course I've abandoned my clean desk policy regarding my talk page. --DrTorstenHenning 08:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's okay, a very common mistake. After an hour of fixing it, I can get snappy. By the way, in case no one has said it, welcome to Wikipedia! Don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page in case you ever have any questions about anything. --Dmcdevit·t 08:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I have been welcomed, but the welcome message fell victim to my clean desk policy ... --DrTorstenHenning 09:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Rent-a-Husband
I saw your nomination of Votes_for_deletion/Rent-a-Husband and agree it looked bad, but Rent-a-Husband is a real movie that stars Brooke Shields, Maria Grazia Cucinotta and Chevy Chase. I rewrote the article into a stub, so you might want to take another look. DS1953 02:12, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Good job. Changed my vote to keep. --DrTorstenHenning 07:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen
Hi, I'm surprised, that Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen has an entry in the wikipedia here. I'll change my User page :) --Kawana 20:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Help with Translation!?
Can you help translate this for me to swedish? Many thanks in advance!

''Albania's major trading partners include Romania, Italy, the Czech and Slovak republics, and Germany. It exports crude petroleum, chromium ore and iron ore, copper wire, vegetables and fruits, tobacco, and wine. The principal imports are machinery and equipment, spare parts, minerals and metals, construction materials, and food products.''

--Armour 10:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio marking a page containing an image
It's not the page that's copyvio, but the image it contains (Image:dfr.jpg). Probably, the image should be marked as imagevio rather than the page as copyvio, but I'm not entirely sure how to do this. --ais523 14:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll find out about that, the image was gone before I had checked the instructions. In any case, I think that copyvio content should be eliminated (by replacing it with the copyvio tag) immediately. --DrTorstenHenning 14:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about immediate elimination of copyvio; it's just that the article itself contained no copyvio (just a transclusion of a copyvio template). Still, someone seems to have sorted the problem out for us. --ais523 14:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

B. Channakeshaviah
Hi, I noticed that you tagged this article for speedy deletion because it was unsourced. This is certainly a valid reason for going to AfD and deleting the article, but not a valid reason for speedy deletion. In any case, I've fixed the link to the article, and the article certainly makes claims of notability about the subject. Anyway, just to let you know... --- Deville (Talk) 17:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not quite. I had tagged the article for speedy as spam, because the external link that provided the context did link to a page that had no meaningful connection to the subject of the article. And spam is a valid reason for speedy deletion. But thanks for taking the time to dig into that website and giving this article some context. --DrTorstenHenning 07:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Prod
You prodded the article Maria Wong (YAF) before it was sent to AfD. I saw that was already the second prod in the article's short history. While I agree that the article should not be kept, it should not be prodded more than once, either. If a prod is contested by removing the tag, a full-blown WP:AFD is the next step to deletion. Yours, Huon 12:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right, I should have checked the article's history. --DrTorstenHenning 12:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

List_of_strange_units_of_measurement
Please stop changing this entry on list of strange units. There are many sources available which state that the unit's name is in lower case, and that it is written with an -s suffix when discussing more than one of them. All you are doing by insisting on "Joule" as the correct and immutable form is make your claim to be a trained physicist a dubious one. Rhialto 10:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is at least one source, NIST SP 811, which I consider the most definitive guide on standardisation when it comes to units, that states that the value of a quantity should be expressed in acceptable units (so let's put aside the erg for a while and concentrate on the quantity named after Mr. Joule) "using (...) the symbols for the units, not the spelled-out names of the units." (subsection 7.6 in SP 811). That means the equation in the jerk section should read "1 jerk=1016 ergs=109 J=1 GJ", and since the erg is not an acceptable unit, I will gladly stop protesting against the plural-s in this case. If you have a source that says otherwise, please share the info with me. And, needless to say, I am still claiming to be a trained physicist. BTW, I have slightly edited the headline of this section to avoid any misunderstandings. --DrTorstenHenning 13:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The International Bureau of Weights and Measures (to use their translated name) seems to favour writing out terms in full, at least for the first instance of the term in a document. Regarding abbreviations, it is not reasonable for a casual reader to know what every abbreviation means unless given some context first. Most good style manuals require that abbreviation to be noted alongside the term in full in the first place that term is used. Significantly, wikipedia's own manual [] of style insists on spelling out the term in full on the first use.


 * Regarding the spaces in the terms, I added them for visual clarity, as without teh extra spaces, it looks like "1 jerk=10^16", "ergs=10^9", "J=1", "GJ". Obvious nonsense I know, and soon re-interpreted correctly, but the spaces make it simpler for the eye to parse quickly. I feel the goal shoudl be make it easier for the reader, before making it easier for the writer. Rhialto 15:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "J" for "joule" is not an abbreviation, but a symbol. Therefore, I think, the rules for symbols (e.g. SP 811) should prevail over those for abbreviations (Wikipedias Manual of Style) in cases of contradiction. I completely agree on the extra hardspaces around the equal signs. --DrTorstenHenning 16:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to get into a (I feel pointless) argument into semiotics and symbols vs abbreviations, it is worth bearing in mind that both "J" and "joule" are symbols. Neither is the actual item they refer to. Each is just a peculiar set of squiggles that by convention is identified as referring to a certain unit of energy. But the casual reader won't even think of semiotics, and this distinction you are making on symbols vs abbreviations is surprising. I'm willing to ask for external comments on the matter, but I'm worried it might get nominated for WP:LAME. As a shorter method of writing someting to refer to the same concept, "J" well fits the description of being an abbreviation for "joule". Still, shall we call on third parties for this? Rhialto 05:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If your main occupation on Wikipedia is metrology, as your homepage indicates, the two of us should easily be able to agree on NIST SP 811 as a basic standard guiding us in our work (and this has nothing to do with being America-centric, NIST SP 811 forms the basis for the official recommendations in e. g. Germany as well). SP 811 does make a distinction between symbols and abbreviations. As for the fear of getting nominated for WP:LAME, I think the edit wars there are much funnier and easier to grasp. And we are not even in an edit war, just having a discussion about something that seems to matter to both of us. At this point it seems obvious that you are more in favour of spelling out unit names, following the conventions for English, and I am more in favour of using the symbols, because I think of the English Wikipedia as more of an International Wikipedia, and I like to keep things as language-indpendent as possible. But I realize that puts me in a minority position, so I am inclined to just giving up at this point. --DrTorstenHenning 10:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Electrical conductivity edit 07:32, 11 October 2006
Hi doc

Would you care to explain in more detail the reasons for your edit of 07:32, 11 October 2006.

It would seem that the original version was designed to confuse the layman rather than inform. 81.131.126.86 16:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have re-entered the alternative definition pending your thoughts on the matter. 81.131.109.239 17:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The "definition" spoke of a one-square-meter-face cube that you needed to measure the conductivity. That is obviously not the case. The definition of conductivity is via the relation between current density and electrical field strength. Period. Anything else, like the story of the one-square-meter-face cube, is at best an example and should be clearly set apart from the definition. Also, the SI units are not part of the definition of the quantity. It certainly is helpful to give the SI unit, and I think this should be done for every physical quantity, but again, the SI unit is not part of the definition. So in summary, as you said, the original version with alternative definitions was designed to confuse the layman rather than inform, and that is why I edited it. I will check the article in its present state for correctness soon, I hope this answers your question in the meantime. --DrTorstenHenning 09:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We seem to be at cross purposes here; it is the original version which I found confusing. I added my definition to make it less confusing to the layman. You seem to be entirely unsure of what I had actually written; perhaps this discussion would be better advanced if you read the definition and then quoted precisely from it so that there are no misunderstandings. Suffice it say that I challenge your deletion on the grounds you stated. It was not a redundant definition since the "unit" of conductivity (siemens/metre) had not been defined. Only the "property" of conductivity had been defined. I also challenge your assertion that siemens was "the wrong word anyway"; it was entirely correct if you had read the COMPLETE definition and not just a part of it.


 * I note, in passing, that you say that "the SI unit is not part of the definition of the quantity" whereas, of course, the SI units are entirely about the definition of quantity. They are not, however, part of the definition of the PROPERTY. I must confess that I am somewhat concerned about your lack of precision in terminology and its effect on the progress of this discussion. I don't, for instance, understand your problem with a 1-metre cube - it is a very common term. I suspect we may need to ask for outside opinion to resolve our problem. 62.125.76.4 08:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC) -- 62.125.76.4 08:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I claim that electrical conductivity is a physical quantity. Period. If you challenge that statement, feel free to call for outside help.
 * I further claim that the definition of a physical quantity is independent of the definition of the units (plural!!) in which it may (!!) be measured. Let me give an example. The physical quantity "velocity" is defined as the first derivative of position with respect to time. Anything like "the velocity in miles per hour is the number of miles that a car travels in one minute multiplied with sixty" or "the velocity of an airplane in knots is the number of kilometers that the airplane travels in one hour multiplied by 1.852" is not definition, but a corollary. Whereas there can only be one definition, there can be an infinite number of corollaries derived from that one definition. We might have one or two of them for illustrative purposes.
 * As for your statement, "the SI units are entirely about the definition of quantity.", I frankly do not understand what the colloquialism "to be all about" should mean in this context. --DrTorstenHenning 09:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. We agree. The definition of a physical quantity is independent of the definition of the units in which it may be measured. We can equally say that a definition of an SI unit is independent of the of the physical property, electrical conductivity in this case. It must surely follow that the addition I made to the statement of SI units is not an addition to the definition of electrical conductivity. That "Period" you mentioned earlier is right there. Why then was my addition redundant? 81.131.8.77 22:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The definition of electrical conductivity is that it is the constant relating current density to electrical field strength. The addition that involves the 1-meter-cube is an example, it is not a definition. I assume that is the addition you are referring to, and I assume that I have always been talking to the same person - correct me if I am wrong. --DrTorstenHenning 17:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am trying to understand your concerns about re-definition but electrical conductivity is defined in paragraph 1 of the article but we are discussing paragraph 2 which begins: "Conductivity is the reciprocal (inverse) of electrical resistivity ... ". Since this really is another definition of electrical conductivity, why have you not deleted this as redundant?  213.122.70.193 20:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry. The second paragraph is set apart from the definition, and so I thought it was clear that this was not another attempt at a definition, but rather a (correct and useful) statement. Conductivity is the reciprocal of resistivity. --DrTorstenHenning 09:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy
Learn some philo, esp. perspective and cognitive philo, if you're gonna mess around with alternative/new-age/pseudo sciences...

P.S.- Lose the dogma...

Kasdaye 21:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you be a little more specific, please? "Perspective" seems to be something related to "point of view", which, as I understand it, it not the business of Wikipedia. Also, "mess around" seems to be meant in a kind of derogative way. You probably refer to my labelling of the Orgonite related pseudoscientific ramblings as "pseudoscience". I might just as well say, "Learn some science, before you mess around with Wikipedia". And just what dogma should I lose? Nothing but questions ... --DrTorstenHenning 08:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Orgone
I looked at the Orgone page today, and saw your comment that it should be deleted. I put it into AfD, and I expect a lively debate. Maybe you'll want to vote. :)

Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 20:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Since it was kept, it should be properly edited. I started very slowly, by clarifying some references. I suggest we continue, very very slowly, just clarifying what is said and by whom. If properly done, it will speak for itself & the reader will understand. DGG 00:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:SissySpacek_TheRiver_01.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SissySpacek_TheRiver_01.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank You!
Dr.Henning, I just wanted to thank you for your contributions to the orgone page/orgone discussion page. I am also delighted that the word "orgone"(whether lowercase or capitalized) is perceived as a misspelling by my spell check software. Living in Los Angeles, I have seen far too many mediocre minds enchanted by the glitter of the "metaphysical", and as an artist and musician, I find it deeply disturbing that so many of my peers will eagerly figure out their astrological charts and "study" things like the Mayan calendar, while denouncing the major monotheistic religions (which, for the record, I denounce myself and find exactly the same as these "new age" whatever-you-want-to-call-them). Well, Thanks, Danke, Tak, Merci, Gratis! your friend, Morningwindow 01:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:SissySpacek TheRadical 01.jpg
Hello DrTorstenHenning, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:SissySpacek TheRadical 01.jpg) was found at the following location: User:DrTorstenHenning/imagegallery. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 18:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Emergy article
Hi. Please discuss your OR claims before posting so we can avoid an edit war. Cheers Sholto Maud 11:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. Simple: a section that consists just of statements of the type "Odum said ..." or "Scienceman said ..." constitutes OR. I have flagged only the most obvious paragraphs, there is a whole lot more of original research in the article. Since I have not made an edit to the text itself (except for adding the template messages), I do not see the danger of an edit war for the time being. I have had this article on my watchlist for quite some time, and I have realised that you are by far the most active contributor to this page. It seems also that you are conducting original research on the subject of "emergy". Being a researcher myself, I find that absolutely OK. However, please make sure to keep the distinction between (your, Odum's and Scienceman's) original research - which does NOT belong in Wikipedia - and generally accepted facts, which belong in Wikipedia (as do crackpot theories, but I do not think emergy is a crackpot theory - it seems to suffer mostly from an inconsistent set of axioms, definitions and theorems). Best regards, --DrTorstenHenning 15:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yes a while ago I undertook to assemble the emergy and related articles in Wikipedia because there weren't any before. I have not been content with simple statements or definitions of the concepts given in some texts. So have I looked more closely at the original sources and have attempted to be true to them.

But I'm not clear on why statements of the type "Odum said ..." or "Scienceman said ..." constitutes OR? The No_original_research article says, "you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say". (As I understand it citing NOR in this way constitute OR in your book...?). My interpretation of this is that the closest way of adhering to what the sources say is to quote them - so we seem to have opposite POV of OR - which we should clear up. I have attempted to adhere as closely as possible to the original texts without making the article a collection of quotes.

How is the text "As if matters were not sufficiently controversial, Scienceman (1995, p.1) added further fuel to the embers of confusion with the statement that: “The concept of GOD is merely a 'personification' of emergy”" OR?

I agree that the discussion of the article contains OR. However I would prefer that you cite specific text first, and put it in the discussion, if you are concerned that a section verges too far away from the original source. Cheers Sholto Maud 21:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a perfect example you picked. Let's ignore that the wording is slightly POV and concentrate on the facts. I am sure we both agree that the statement about God is the result of "Scienceman"'s OR.

Agree.
 * The question is then, whether this fact has been corroborated by other scientists in the meantime

Disagree.
 * and can be considered as factual knowledge (which is not the case),

It is a fact that Scienceman made this statement in a publication by the University of Florida. However there is no NOR or OR protocol that I'm aware of which says that the content of all quotes contain factual knowledge. For example the Sokal_affair article quotes Sokal's article in which Sokal wrote: "Just as liberal feminists are frequently content with a minimal agenda of legal and social equality for women and 'pro-choice', so liberal (and even some socialist) mathematicians are often content to work within the hegemonic Zermelo-Fraenkel framework (which, reflecting its nineteenth-century liberal origins, already incorporates the axiom of equality) supplemented only by the axiom of choice." But the content of this quote is meant to be humerous, not factual knowledge. So
 * or if this is a religious or philosophical idea that has had any important impact on the world (which is not the case).

I'm not aware of any protocols in NOR which specify the importance or impact on the world. How would one measure this?
 * OR remains OR even if it is put in quotation marks (NOR covers any OR, not just an author's own OR),

I think you're taking things a bit far there. Most of the articles from which quotes have been taken that are cited in the emergy article would qualify as OR - that's why they are published by reputable publishers, because they contain novel ideas and data.
 * and ideas have to have had and important impact (as did the ideas of Karl Marx, for example) to qualify for Wikipedia. --DrTorstenHenning 09:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Please quote here the criteria cited in NOR or any other Wikipedia policy which states that the ideas have to have had an important impact, together with the metric by which one assess the impact. Sholto Maud 10:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * , an email by Jimbo, sums it up nicely: "If a view is the majority view of a broad consensus of scientists, then we say so. If a view is a minority view of some scientists, scientists who are respected by the mainstream that differs with them on this particular matter, then we say so.  And if a view is held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials, and if that view is dismissed by virtually all mainstream scientists, then we can say that, too." --DrTorstenHenning 12:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to read this quote from Jimbo (which, if I have interpreted your criteria correctly, seems to be OR, and your use of his views would also be an example of OR). Are you saying 1. that Scienceman does not have any traditional training or credentials, and 2. that his view is dismissed by virtually all mainstream scientists? As for 1. this is not so, as for 2. I have not read any peer review publications, which do not qualify as OR, that express the views of all mainstream scientists on the topic of the relation between the concepts of emergy and god, hence I would have to say that 2. was not so. Sholto Maud 13:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jimbo's definition of Wikipedia is a definition, and definitions are not OR.

Disagree. Hence, by NOR criteria, Jimbo's definition is OR.
 * Jimbo's definition is not published in a peer reviewed respectable article,
 * Jimbo's definition is not the majority view of a broad consensus of scientists


 * As for 1., no, "Scienceman" has training. As for 2., if there is no peer reviewed publication on this subject, then it is still OR.

While we agree that Scienceman's views are OR (as with most other peer reviewed publications), the quote in the emergy article does not qualify as OR by any criteria that you have cited.


 * We'll just have to wait for further investigations into the relationship between emergy and God (a process that will first require unambiguous definitions of these two entities ... don't hold your breath).

Agree.


 * In other words, the relationship to God is no subject for Wikipedia. --DrTorstenHenning 07:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. This is your point of view. You have not cited any NOR criteria which indicate what metric you are using to determine how the quote is innapropriate.

... Would you mind if we put this dicussion on the emergy discussion page? Sholto Maud 08:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

God=emergy
Just to make this clear, are you saying that the statement that God is some form of emergy is established knowledge and thus a suitable topic for an encyclopedia?
 * depends on your definition of "established". I would say that it is valid (in the sense that it was published by a supposedly reputable source - that being the University of Florida), and it is verifiable knowledge. As I understand it these are the two most important criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.

I hope not. The quotation marks around the word personification alone are so unscientific that this statement disqualifies itself.
 * Are you saying that all statements and all statements about words, including the word "emergy", in Wikipedia need to be scientific? Here is a challenge...please cite chapter and verse of Wikipedia policy which states that all statements in Wikipedia must have scientific content.

The question then is, is there any reason this statement should be in an encyclopedia article?
 * If you are asking for my opinion about the value of the statement, I would say that it gives the Wikipedia reader a rounded appreciation of the various different ways the author of the emergy nomenclature intended the emergy concept to be used, together with the scope of application. In this way it is both relevant and important to the article.

No, this is one very personal opinion of one specific person, and Wikipedia is not a collection of everything someone might have said or thought about something at some time. The exception would be opinions that had a major impact on civilization, like the ideas of Confucius, Jesus, or, as mentioned before, Karl Marx (in chronological order). It would be up to you to show that the ideas of the guy who changed his name to "Scienceman" are that important.
 * I'm not sure what you are saying here. The intent of my contributions to the emergy and Scienceman entries are to give context to both the concept, and one of the most significant figures involved in its conception.


 * Again you mention this "importance" criteria, but I've asked you previously to provide me with a direct quote of a Wiki policy stating the metric by which one determines the importance of a topic/article/concpet/word etc to humanity. I don't understand how I could possibly estimate the importance of the emergy concept/article or Scienceman's work without such a metric. Are you looking for howmany people have cited these articles, like an impact factor or something? But that is not necessary for other concpets like "energy".
 * On further reflection, it seems to be the case that Scienceman's connection between God and Emergy is very important to you - else you would not give it any attention. Perhaps you might elaborate on why this connection is important to you, and this might answer your questions. Sholto Maud 01:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

And finally, I still do not see how a definition could be OR. If I define a blubberlutsch as the distance a bottle of Coca-Cola falls under the influence of gravity in one second, that is not OR, since it is not even research.
 * As I understand it this would qualify as OR because it hasn't been published in a reputable publication. The discussion page on a Wikipedia user's site is not a reputable source.

Research starts when I say that a blubberlutsch is not constant with respect to geographical position on the earth and initial velocity of the bottle (which then in turn means my definition is not very useful, but it remains a definition). Every scientist should be very careful not to mix up definitions with statements - in my opinion, this is the major weakness of the emergy article, that is presents various inconsistent definitions so that falsifiable statements are hard to separate from the definition mess. --DrTorstenHenning 09:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I asked previously if you would mind me putting this discussion up on the discussion page of the emergy article. Would that be ok? Sholto Maud 11:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It will be hard for others to follow the discussion since the entries are no longer in chronological order and torn apart, but I would not mind putting it on the emergy discussion page. I am afraid that that page is hardly visited at all. And yes, the connection/equation/whatever between God and emergy is important because it is the most blatant example for the unscientific nature of the article. If one makes it clear from the beginning that emergy is a religious idea or concept, that would be acceptable. Instead, the article gives the impression that we are dealing with a scientific subject. And, by the way: a university by itself is not a reputable source. A university is made up of people, and the mere fact that someone is working at a university does not guarantee that that person's ideas are even sane. It's the same as with a Doctor's degree, or a Professor's title - ideas spoken out by such people still have to pass the tests for criteria such as falsifiability. --DrTorstenHenning 07:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok I'll do that soon... I think we agree on the importance of the quote on God and emergy. At the same time, I'm not sure that it means that the article is unscientific or religious, then again maybe it is ... I don't know ... is the maximum power principle falsifiable? How would I demonstrate that the principle was falsified in the realm of particle physics, or mechanics? I don't know. Do you know? If not where does that leave us?


 * If you have any suggestions about the structure of the article, please make them. My feeling is that Scienceman was attempting to push the limits, while at the same time attempting to be rigorous in terms of mathematical physics. Was he successful? I don't know but some people have invested career status in the concept. Your comments on reputable sources is, somewhat unsettling and begs the question as to what makes a reputable source if not a university or a Doctor's degree etc. etc. etc. ?? As for the criteria of falsifiability, well, I'm not convinced that this is the foundation stone of "science" because I can't falsify all theorems in my lifetime, hence some theorems of "science" are unfalsifiable. Sholto Maud 11:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Energy quality
DrTorstenHenning, can I encourage you to consider two further articles I've contributed to. On further reflection, I think you are right in the main that my contributions have a haphazard character, and the articles would benefit from critical attention and review. If you have time could you pass comment on energy quality and maximum power principle. Regards, Sholto Maud 06:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

PS. FYI energetics also. Cheers. Sholto Maud 07:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Siemens (unit)
You recent contribution to this article is appreciated. You provide it with a good source. Surely you didn't read through the entire document? Perhaps you could help us out by providing the sections which you used? I was wondering if you could please include the chapters which you read through. Thank you. Furthermore, since I couldn't directly find a reference within your new reference which talks about mS, I put my original reference back. I would like to say that it is customary to not remove a reference, especially when the information was originally sourced from that article and is still being used. Though it may not be illegal, I believe it is distasteful and perhaps ethically immoral. Again thank you for your contribuation and I hope you'll be able to pin-point in greater details your verifiable source. --CyclePat (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, I did read through the entire document. The SI is so essential for science that I expect every scientist to know what is in that brochure. As to pointing to a specific section in the brochure: the reference is not attached to a specific statement in the article (in the style of a footnote, for example), but applies to the article in its entirety. If I understand you correctly, you want a reference that supports the statement that the symbol for millisiemens is mS? That's simple, we just need to piece together the fact that the prefix for milli is m and the fact that the symbol for siemens is S. The inclusion of the SI multiples table near the beginning of the article should cover that, but to satisfy your need for a detailed reference, I can tell you that the prefix is covered by Table 5 in section 3.1 and that the unit symbol is covered by Table 3 in subsection 2.2.2 of the SI brochure. The SI brochure is a primary source, compiled by the people whose business is to maintain the standard. This is the kind of source that we should prefer in Wikipedia. A secondary source would be a recompilation of this original material, for example the NIST Special Publication 811, or the reference you gave. The difference between the latter two is that the NIST reference is widely used and hence likely to have errors discovered and eliminated quickly, while the reference you gave has been compiled for a much smaller audience. And indeed, the reference you gave contains both inconsistencies (the title says MD abbreviations, and according to the list, MD stands for manual damper, which is not what its author meant in the title) and errors (Ms stands for megaseconds, not for milliseconds - that would be ms). And according to the date on the MD abbreviations list, this error has been around for more than eight years! Replacing a reference that is secondary and erroneous by a source that is primary (replacing! that is not simply removing! note the difference!!) and verifiable is definitely not distasteful and definitely not ethically immoral. I don't know what culture you come from, but these are pretty harsh words to bring up in the first exchange about the quality of source material. Please try to stay calm and assume good faith. --DrTorstenHenning (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(Sigh). I think you deserve an apology because I alluded to the fact that you removed a reliable source without putting another one back. Yes! At first it appeared as though that is what is happened. I will assume good faith and believe that the SI brochure covers various magnitudes including the MS and mS. The problem is that I will now need to go verify this and try to make an endnote (with http://www.easybib.com). Another problem is that I'm can't easy find the information. I still haven't verified the tables you gave me as reference because for my generation, easy means one click away and preferably within a footnote. Another reason I haven't check out the source is because of your own admission which leads me to believe and fear that the source you provided may be in violation of WP:SYNT. According to Wikipedia's policies, to avoid this assumption, as stated within WP:PSTS, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires another reliable source for that interpretation. To the extent that an article or particular part of an article relies on a primary source, that part of the article should: Conclusion/Summary: What I'm getting to, in short, is that we'll need to work on making this available for the average educated person with basic mathematics so they can understand. Don't get me wrong, I think any educated person can understand this however, it's difficult to verify because of the way it's referenced. A second reference wouldn't hurt, as we say in music, for the "mélomane" That's all! Again, I apologize for the accusation and I hope we can work together in building an article which, despite its scientific intricacies will be easily verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CyclePat (talk • contribs) 14:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and relevance of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
 * make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims, unless such claims are verifiable from another source.
 * Now you've kind of lost me --- what is the problem? The SI brochure is only a mouseclick away, and the tables for Coherent derived units in the SI with special names and symbols and for SI prefixes are right there. Putting together these bits of information to find that mS is the symbol for millisiemens and Ms is the symbol for megaseconds is not what WP:SYNT addresses, that's just a matter of logic. The accuracy and relevance are also easy to verify for Joe Average, it is sufficient to read the second paragraph of the preface. Since we are dealing with a matter of definition here, a seconds source would necessarily be redundant, since a definition can only be made once. And the mathematics needed here do not extend below simple multiplication, which I assume everyone to be familiar with. --DrTorstenHenning (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation
--Zeitgespenst (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Cloudbuster: Keep or redirect and merge?
The 2nd Articles for deletion discussion for Cloudbuster closed as "keep," with the note that "any merge/redirect discussions should take place at the relevant talk pages". However, the article was immediately merged and redirected into Orgone energy. The editor who participated in the discussion and then performed the merge believes that the merge/redirect is supported by consensus. I am posting this notice to the talk page of each of the editors who participated in the discussion, including the nominator, to ensure that this is the case. -- Shunpiker (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SissySpacek TheRadical 01.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:SissySpacek TheRadical 01.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Ja Ga  talk 01:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:DIN 4844-2 prohibition signs and Category:GHS pictograms
Hi! Thanks a lot for your for your very well designed SVG prohibition signs and GHS pictograms at Wiki-Commons. I noticed, however, that the background of these graphics within the circle and diamond frame, respectively, is transparent instead of white. Placing the images on a colored background leads to “wrong” pictograms (as you can notice here). Would it be possible to change the background only within the red bounderies to white? Best Greetings, --Sponk 07:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now added a white sign background to the GHS pictograms. Greetings, --Sponk (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Fehlerrechnung und Unsicherheit
Hallo! Ich würde mich sehr freuen, wenn irgendjemand die Artikel zu Fehlerrechnung und Unsicherheit in DE-Wikipedia synchronisieren könnte. Seit 1973 haben wir den GUM und es gibt die "Fehlerrechnung" und die "Fehlerfortpflanzung" nicht mehr, so wie sie 2010 in WP beschrieben wird. Fühlen Sie sich berufen? Mir ist das eine Nummer zu heavy. Grüsse Cms metrology (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Your images
Which program do you use to make those *.svg images of yours? They look pretty good and I am just wondering... :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.105.35.82 (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * inkscape. Some old drawings were first made in xfig and later translated, but since 2006, I have been doing practically all my drawing in inkscape. --DrTorstenHenning (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good job I must say. Especially those signs. Keep the good work! 193.105.35.82 (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I also want to thank You for images. I am now in translating European_hazard_symbols into bosnian. Previously, I have translated parts of Nanotechology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palapa (talk • contribs) 12:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Habana


A tag has been placed on Habana requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Vrenator    talk   10:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Bild-nutzung
Hallo Torsten,



Das Verbotszeichen habe ich bei Hurraki verwendet.

Jaywalking Verbotszeichen

Danke und Gruß

Manzal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.43.43.98 (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)