User talk:Duae Quartunciae/W. Kehler/Issues

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Lyndon objects
Lyndon Ashmore. You can object to a page here. You don't just delete the whole thing... especially a talk page! If you have a problem, you can say something about it here. Be aware that it is not a personal attack to point out errors in your physics, or to say that it is full of trivial errors. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 
 * He has been blocked for 2 days for blanking these pages, so it may be a while before we hear back from him. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP Issues
Please note that while this is a user page, it is still subject to WP:BLP. I have removed several statements from the page because they contain unsourced negative information about a living person; these must not be restored without a citation. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Stifle. Thanks for your input. I will be glad of administrator help with this issue, and I would also appreciate you taking a bit of time to read how I see it, and comment. It's not a matter of urgency and I will wait a while before altering the page again.
 * This page is not a biography, nor is it biographical. It does not contain any remarks about a person for which the WP:BLP policy applies, as far as I can see. The only mention of Lyndon Ashmore is not comment on him personally, but on certain ideas in physics and on an article he has written. This was in order to explain why they were not able to be included in wikipedia. If the WP:BLP policy is interpreted so broadly as to constrain any negative comment on public writings of a living person in discussion between editors, then we are in serious trouble. I am happy to reword if needed to ensure that the focus is on the errors in the physics and not the person; but it seems to me that is already the case.
 * You have made four edits to this record of my discussion with Mr Kehler, who has since registered here as DeepBlueDiamond. I do not think any the edits were required under wikipedia conventions, but I will consider each one in turn and indicate how I propose to proceed. Can you take a look at these suggestions for me please? &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  15:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * BLP (as well as libel law) requires that we don't permit uncited negative information about living people anywhere on Wikipedia. From the lead of that article: "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially: WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR." I am specifically referring to WP:V in this; the BLP policy does specify that it applies to all Wikipedia pages, not just articles.
 * Please bear this in mind with regard to the points below. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely understand that WP:BLP applies to all pages. My point is that there's no biographical information here. There's criticism of a paper, along with specifics on where the paper is incorrect. I don't think there's anything libelous about that; and I don't want to see a precedent set where WP:BLP is invoked to modify editor discussions so as to remove negative comments about an article that has been proposed as source for use in wikipedia. I don't think anything at all in the original page ought to be a problem with the BLP policy; but I am happy to go ahead with some of the changes mentioned below for clarity. Your continued oversight is very welcome. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  22:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have completed my rephrase of the page. The differences with the original can be seen with this comparison. Thanks for your help. Further oversight and feedback is welcome if it is still necessary. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  23:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit 1. Removal of part of DeepBlueDiamond's analogy
You removed a part of an analogy by DeepBlueDiamond. The edit is |edit at 09:14, 2 November 2009.

I am pretty sure you have simply misunderstood this deleted material. DeepBlueDiamond is a native German speaker, and his English is often unclear. The removed sentence reads: In this extract, DeepBlueDiamond is speaking of a hypothetical seller of engines for a car. It is not any kind of remark about any living person; any imputed criticism is not biographical, and is intended to refer to ME, not Lyndon. The whole analogy is rather bizarre, and he implies in parenthesis that I have called Lyndon a crank. Ironically, I have been pretty careful about that; I have deliberately not included any such statement in these pages, to my knowledge.
 * All normal people would call such a seller (as you had accused our and ASHMORE's declatarions) as "crank", "silly" or an "idiot".

I am going to restore this sentence unchanged to the record of our discussion, since it is not a comment on any living person except possibly to myself, and there's no reason to remove it. It's simply the conclusion of DeepBlueDiamond's hypothetical analogy about a used car salesman. However, I'll wait for a week so that you may comment further first, if you wish. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  15:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have no issue with the statement without the parenthetical comparison. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * On principle I don't like deleting comments of another editor; but I guess I can make an exception in this case if it helps keep the peace. The parenthetical comparison misrepresents what I have said about crank science in any case. I'll go ahead and restore without that bit. In the earlier talk page with Mr Kehler I clarified the one instance where I spoke of crank science with this edit (see end of the revision for the added remark). I was not describing any individual person, but rather the physics itself, and why it was deleted from the biography. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  22:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit 2. On notability, and errors in a paper
Your second edit removes two sentences from my remarks. The edit is at 09:17, 2 November 2009.

The first sentence you removed reads This is not attack or criticism. It is simply about whether his ideas belong in wikipedia, per our policy WP:Notability. It is perfectly normal to point out that someone is not "notable" by wikipedia standards. To underline why this remark is made, I propose to replace this sentence with This makes it clear that the sentence is not an attack and is a normal part of engagement and discussion between editors dealing with sources in wikipedia. Note that Ashmore's paper appeared in "Galilean Electrodynamics". There used to be a page for this "journal" in wikipedia, and it was quite properly deleted as fringe rubbish. See Articles for deletion/Galilean Electrodynamics. Ashmore has no publication record in any legitimate science journals and no notability in the world of science. I don't think there should be any problem with this comment on Ashmore's lack of notability; but again, I'll wait a week before making this replacement, so that you may comment. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  15:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He has no notability in the world of science at all.
 * He has no notability in the world of science, and so cannot be use as a source in wikipedia. (See notability policy).

The second sentence you removed in this edit reads This sentence is not biographical. It is a comment about a paper. I've already cited the original paper. If this was in wikipedia article space then I agree a claim about errors should be sourced. As it is, I can only assure you that anyone with any reasonable background in physics would see this to be true on reading the paper; and that the errors have been pointed out at length in various discussions which are not valid wikipedia references.
 * "His paper is riddled with elementary errors."

I can't source this comment, in part because the paper is so bad! It's not actually used by anyone; and the errors in it are described only when Ashmore shows up in some webforum to try and push his ideas. It would be negative personal comment to describe how he engages these discussions.

It seems to me that this sentence is not something for which WP:BLP applies. It's a comment on a paper, not a person. I've never heard of this policy being applied to prevent editors from saying in discussion that a book or essay includes many errors! I could, perhaps, source it by giving something like this: Neither of these links would be acceptable in a wikipedia article, and both are to material written by me, under the name "Sylas" in physics related discussion groups. There's a lot more in each discussion thread; with all kinds of people participating, including Lyndon himself. But I don't think it sets a good precedent to require sourcing in a case like this; I don't think these are the kinds of links we want to encourage, and I don't think we should prevent editors from saying that an online essay includes lots of errors.
 * Ashmore's paper has many elementary errors, which I have described in other science related discussion groups, writing as "sylas". evcforum, March 2005, BAUT forum, June 2005.

However, I will await a comment before doing anything about this sentence. I think it is improper use of the WP:BLP to remove this sentence, but I'll await more feedback from you or another experienced administrator before making any replacement or restoration. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  15:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems mostly reasonable. It would be great if you could specify notability in terms of "he does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines". Stifle (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I have gone ahead with this edit to restore the sense of the original in a form that may be more acceptable. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  22:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit 3. Removal of specific details of errors in the paper
In your third edit, you have removed some comments about the paper. They are not biographical remarks in any way; and they are backed up in the rest of the paragraph anyway.

The edit in this case is an edit on 09:17, 2 November 2009. You removed a passage which refers to errors in the paper. In all honesty, it would be impossible to overstate just how physically absurd this error really is. However, I can be a bit less scornful if it helps.

Another thing I can do here is remove the word "Ashmore..." at the start of the extract, since in fact I am referring to the paper and not the person. It's common in academic writing to refer to a cited reference in this way; and this way of referring to a paper comes naturally to me. But in wikipedia, it may be better to be explicit that this is specifically about the paper.

I propose to rephrase this section, removing Ashmore's name also from where it appears even in material you have let remain in the page. I propose to restore the deleted introduction, but drastically rephrased to be less scornful; though I shall still be blunt. I'll wait a bit before proceeding, however. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  15:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the concept of referring to papers by the author's name; it would, as you mention, be better to be specific when you are referring to the paper. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have rephrased the whole subsection to make this more clear. The edit is here. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  23:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit 4. Removed a reference to more errors in the paper
Your edit is an edit made on 09:18, 2 November 2009. This is similar to the case in your second edit, where I refer to errors in a paper. Again, it's not biographical claims about a person, but a statement about a cited paper.

I propose to replace the deleted sentence as follows:
 * I have not attempted to list all the errors in this paper; but rather to list some of the errors that are directly relevant to errors that were introduced into the Zwicky biography.

As before, I will await your comments before making this proposed change. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  15:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That would seem fine. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. The revised restoration is made, this edit. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  23:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Background to why this page has this form
The unusual format of this page is a consequence of issues that W. Kehler had with appropriate use of conventional talk pages.

This page is essentially an archive of communication with W. Kehler. W. Kehler presented wikipedia physics editors with a problem some years ago. He made many nonsensical edits to physics pages, and took enormous exception to anyone reverting them. He complained all over the place, in fragmented English and with strange formatting such as the use of heading markup for emphasis, and discussed by fragmenting replies from other people with his own rather incoherent inserts. He used IP addresses in the range 84.158.2??.*

Since he was using an IP address, I made a sort of pseudo-user page for him, in my own user space, attempting to introduce him to normal wikipedia conventions, and directed him to engage there. The end result was astounding; and even got a bemused query on the administrators notice board, by a passing admin who couldn't figure it out.

In the end, I gave up on the usual "talk" format, and adopted the side by side format seen in this page; though it is all still an attempt to communicate with a new editor struggling to work with wikipedia.

You can get an idea of how this came about with some of these links:
 * Complaints he made at Jimbo Wales talk page: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 26 and User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 26. (Illustrative of a number of other similar style edits to various pages.)
 * My initial invitation to him to engage in my user space: diff at Talk:Anti-Gravity, July 24, 2007.
 * The initial page for engaging with Mr Kehler: on July 24 2007 and the current page: User:Duae Quartunciae/W. Kehler.
 * The page is noticed at Admin notice board: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive97

The page is a good faith attempt to help an editor work effectively with wikipedia. It is essentially a communication page, rather like a user talk page; and it is kept as an archival record of the attempt. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  15:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to explain all of this, and for your patience in the matter. I have made one more small amendment to specify that the Ashmore test is your own opinion; this way, it is an expression of your opinion, to which you're entitled, rather than an assertion of fact.
 * I'll keep this on my watchlist so that we can head off any more issues that might arise. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks very much for your help. This has never been intended as an attack page, and I will now go ahead with a few changes. I welcome further oversight and assistance; and Lyndon also is welcome to comment further, though he should do so by adding his comments here rather than by editing other people's comments. He has always had his "right of reply" by adding material to this talk page. However, I really consider this page as an archive of finished business. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  21:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lyndon is aware where he should respond. I'm going on wikibreak until next Tuesday, but I think the issues are mostly resolved now. Stifle (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

20 years time
Please keep this page as it is. In 20 years time when i am proved correct and the BB is old news then historians will want to see how forward thinkers such as I suffered at the hands of Ludites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyndonashmore (talk • contribs) 19:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL. Seems like a good suggestion, Lyndon, and also a good way for us both to avoid wasting more time here, where neither of us is likely to have much impact on anything much for how the future unfolds. Best of luck with it, and with all your further endeavors. Although I think it a tad unlikely (to say the least!) I don't have any personal stake in that. I'll be very happy to cheer you on, and to admit up front that my own good faith skepticism in your proposed tired light mechanism was misplaced, if that's how things turn out. Adios &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  23:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)