User talk:GangofOne

Concision is a virtue.

Welcome to the Wikipedia

 * Hi GangofOne, welcome to Wikipedia. It seems we share various interests. If you need any help or advice - I've been around a little while and have admin status. JFW | T@lk  08:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Welcome as well. Cyt p450 was on my watchlist as well. I put together one of the earliest stubs on this just because I needed to mention it in another article and I knew we needed one. Several other people thought so as well and have augmented, but no one has yet endeavored to write a large comprehensive article. Wikipedia has lots of both kinds: the best are obviously the ones where someone puts a lot of effort into a large article, but many useful ones are the work of lots of small additions. Thanks for the additions. Are you up to fleshing this out into a comprehensive article. We would all be admiring. Your first snort is free. This is exactly the way this works. alteripse 12:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's on my watchlist too, and I'd like to extend a welcome too. I had initially only discussed the CYPs most relevant to drug metabolism because that is my area of expertise. I agree with what you've done there, including the whole range of CYPs. The website that you've linked to, and referenced from, are good and well-referenced. In general, though, it'd probably be better to cite an article from a peer-reviewed journal. Anyway, keep up the good work. -Techelf 14:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Due to lack of knowledge of the subject and time, I am not planning a major revision of this article; although as I learn something, I may throw in some facts.GangofOne 07:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Question about Factorials
In Stirling's approximation, I'm curious how you got those values for huge factorials. JabberWok 05:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * one could use programs that include big numbers, like Mathematica, Maple, most version of lisp, perl with Big::Int (or whatever it's called) libraries, but the one I used is the free and amazing program known as pari or pari-gp. I see it has an entry: PARI-GP computer algebra system Get it at http://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/ I use it as my prefered quick calculator, but it also computes 1000s of functions I don't understand. Recommended.GangofOne 06:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's optimized for speed. You may not need to use Stirling's approx. Eg

? \p 200 realprecision = 202 significant digits (200 digits displayed) ? 123456! +0.0 time = 18,720 ms. %33 = 2.6040699049291378729513930560926568818273270409503019584610185579952057379676834157935 607166171279087355200170616660008572612714566985893730865282934317244121152865814030 204645985573419251305342231136 E574964

Quantum indeterminacy in computation
In what sense do you think that quantum indeterminacy in computation is a separate issue?--Carl Hewitt 20:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Award
I think you deserve this. If it weren't for you no one sensible would be putting in the pro pov at all. I agree with what you said about the Nobel prise. If they turn out to be right, it will be a bombshell. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

award you this cool as a cucumber award for the calm manner in which you have behaved in aetherometry Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/Robert Duncan Wilmot (poet)
GoO, your comments here had me rolling with laughter! Fawcett5 02:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Glad you liked it. Every once in a while I think of something worthy.GangofOne 02:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

you are welcome to fix the "thought experiment" in the Magnetic Field article.
(i'm posting this on the Talk:Magnetic_field talk page.)

i'm still not clear as to what to fix without bringing in the quantative analysis. (is that what you want me to do?) even if there is outward acceleration between the two lines of charge, there is an instant of time where the relative velocity is zero (therefore not moving relative to each other). it is only this instant of time that i was referring to in the thought experiment.

two infinite lines of charge do exert an infinite force on each other, but the force per unit length is finite and if the mass per unit length is also finite, then the outward acceleration is determinable. no?

let's be specific about what needs to be fixed. i'm happy if it is fixed. r b-j 03:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Antony Flew
You added a link to an ABC article on this man to the Intelligent Design article. Please read the article. From the article:
 * In an another letter to Carrier of 29 December 2004 Flew went on to retract his statement "a deity or a 'super-intelligence'" is "the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature." "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction." wrote Flew.
 * Flew's original argument was that one should presuppose atheism until evidence of a God surfaces. He still stands behind this evidentialist approach, although he may have now changed his mind about what the evidence says.
 * Ec5618, ok, Flew is out. Thanks for the update. GangofOne 06:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The coriolis effect article
Hi GangofOne,

What is your opinion of the situation with the coriolis effect article? I know that in my burning eagerness to communicate the ideas I write too much, and the Talk page is flooded with my comments.

Are you able so sieve the important things out of the deluge?

Your remarks are quite to the point every time. Have you formed an opinion of how you see the physics of atmospheric motions? --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 21:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

List of publications in sociology
Hi,

I saw your contributions to the list. Thank you for that. Could you write a short description of the publications and explain their importance. I don’t have a proper background in sociology and therefore I don’t feel as if I’m the right person to do it. Thanks, APH 10:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Science pearls
Hello,

In a topic related to the one above:

Since you contributed in the past to the publications’ lists, I thought that you might be interested in this new project. I’ll be glad if you will continue contributing. Thanks,APH 11:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

LeSage Gravity
Hi, GangofOne, I did see your comment but didn't see anything I could respond to.

FYI, the best way for a nonproject member to contact me is by leaving a clear and concise message in my talk page. I expect that the Bulletin will be cleaned up regularly and probably won't be archived (except in "history"). The reason is that since the project members wish to spend as little time as possible on such matters, we don't want any entry to be more than a few lines. So please don't be surprised or offended if your comment there disappears.

I wish you would condescend to explain (in a message on my talk page) what you found offensive (?) or ironical (?) about my comment about the future of Wikipedia. I would be truly surprised if you thought I was trolling, if that is what you mean to imply, but if you really did think that I would like to know why. Perhaps I am too new a user to know if due to some past history, some might find my expression of doubt offensive. It is surely obvious that since I am editing here, while I do think the current Wikipedia model is doomed to failure, as I say on my user page, I also believe that Wikipedia is currently a valuable resource for suitably sceptical students, and despite my medium term fears about the future of Wikipedia, I do expect something of longer lasting value to come our work. Fair enough? ---CH (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Where and how do we classify an article about slashdotting?
This page [] Was slashdotted [] Any blips? Artoftransformation 03:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess you copy the template from, say, Talk:Hydrino theory to Talk:Machinima, and since it's a lame uninformative Template, it seems a good idea to append the explicit link http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/09/1442201 for those who wish to read /. GangofOne 07:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Bear in mind, In new here, I have a bit of an idea about what your talking about, but have almost absolutly no idea how to do it. But Im going to give it a shot...If Im not back in 3 minutes, send out ... Artoftransformation 08:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I figured it out. Not too hard...--Artoftransformation 09:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hydrino theory and Green Frogs
Sir: just wondered why you added this link: "*http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/8/4/1 "Hydrogen result causes controversy", August 5, 2005, recent articles, pro and con." Its a recent article, citing Rathke's article, and a math paper with terrible english. I would peak at that math paper. I quoted it. It was on target about the controversy, vs this no new information article. Artoftransformation
 * above signature forged by 16:57, 15 November 2005 AlDantes  ; straightened out on Artoft talk

David Kennedy page
Please stop deliberately introducing incorrect information into articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. You placed a link to an opinion page about Rosemary Kennedy's mental status on the David Kennedy page. It has nothing to do with David Kennedy. In addition, you placed this link in a deceptive manner, by putting false information about what the link was about. Please stop. Wikipedianinthehouse 04:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The text in question:

==External link== +	A quote by David Kennedy expressing his anger at his family. [ http://fatboy.cc/Rosemary.htm ] Near the end.
 * the quote referred to in that text:

But Rosemary’s story, so horrifying in its casual, callous brutality, was never forgotten by millions of Americans, and certainly not by any members of the Kennedy family. In the late 1970s, Bobby’s doomed son, David, was reading a copy of the pro-drug magazine High Times when he came across a story on lobotomies. Naturally enough, one of the illustrations was a photo of his beautiful aunt Rosemary, pre-lobotomy. “She had a new pair of white shoes on,” David recalled later for the authors Peter Collier and David Horowitz. “The thought crossed my mind that if my grandfather was alive the same thing could have happened to me that happened to her. She was an embarrassment; I am an embarrassment. She was a hindrance; I am a hindrance. As I looked at this picture, I began to hate my grandfather and all of them for having done the thing they had done to her and for doing the thing they w ere doing to me.” David died of a drug overdose in 1984....
 * Wikipedianinthehouse, you claim this is incorrect information. What is incorrect about it? Why do you consider it vandalism? Why do you feel a quote BY David Kennedy is not relevant TO David Kennedy? He is discussing his family, surely this is relevant to a biographical entry. What is deceptive about the manner in which  I placed the link? Is not "A quote by David Kennedy expressing his anger at his family." a fair description of the quote in question? What is the false information about what the link was about? GangofOne 19:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I question your motives for putting that link on the David Kennedy page. The link is not about David Kennedy; it is about Rosemary Kennedy.  If you want to include that quote, I would recommend putting the acutal quote in the DK article instead of linking to it.  Wikipedianinthehouse
 * So you withdraw your previous comments and now see that the quote IS relevant to David Kennedy? Since the quote involves Rosemary, would not information about her now be relevant, so the reader could understand the quote? If I put the quote in the article, I would have to include its source, the link in question. Would you object to that? What do you think my motives are? GangofOne 20:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Correction thanks!
GangofOne, thanks for the typo input on the human thermodynamics glossary page; much appreciated! If you have anymore input, let me know. Later, --Wavesmikey 05:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal AfD tag from Afshar experiment
Dear GangofOne, please remove the AfD tag from the experiment page. Who is supposed to close the voting process? It's already been 9 days, way over the usual voting time. Why?! -- Afshar 15:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Jason Group Edit
Dear Gang of One, I liked your solution to the links with more speculation that fact. I had removed those links, but you're right, readers should be able to choose for themselves. - Ann      151.196.123.30
 * I'm happy we can agree. Yes, it's up to the reader. GangofOne 22:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Gang of One, Your addition of recent studies is just fine, and thank you for keeping up with it. Several of those listed as members, however, may not be. Did you get their names from the studies? If so, not everyone who works on a study is a Jason -- sometimes the group brings in experts for just one study. Maybe the best solution is to introduce the membership list by saying where the names came from, and adding the caveat that study authors aren't necessarily members. - Ann

Also, dear Gang of One, I just noticed that you'd requested that I go through the links that I identified as having more speculation than fact and classify which was which. I think that's not feasible: separating the real from the imaginary would essentially mean rewriting the links' content, of which there's a lot. I'd just as soon leave it at caveat emptor. - Ann
 * Yes, I knew it was too much to ask. Looking forward to reading your book on the Jasons. ISBN 0670034894 --GangofOne 06:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

And aren't you kind to say so, and to supply that link, you nice Gang of One. I do thank you. I corrected it: I think you mixed it up with another book with a similar message and a nearly identical cover (publishers can be such idiots), by a friend of mine, Sharon Weinberger. And really, I was charmed by that link. - Ann

To exercise the possibility to vote

 * FYI. thought you might like to vote on Requests_for_adminship/William_M._Connolley_2 --GangofOne 20:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I knew that William is up for adminship, I hadn't decided yet whether to vote. I don't know. We will see what the future will bring. --Cleonis | Talk 22:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Question forom Janusz Karpinski
Hi, this is Janusz Karpinski. I am writing to you because you voted "keep" in AfD for aetherometry entry. The present situation is that by Wikipedia standards there is no reputable secondary literature at all about aetherometry. The minority view is contained only in primary sources, which do not even fulfill Wikipedia standards for scientific references, and there are no other publications, so there is no majority view. "Majority view" here does not mean view of majority of Wikipedia administrators, it means published and generally accepted view of outside scientific community. There is nothing like this for aetherometry. As result, nothing in entry can be verified or referenced, it is all interpretation and opinion. This is not how encyclopedia should work, and is against Wikipedia policy. Since you said that entry should be kept, you must have idea how entry can start to provide verifiable encyclopedic information when there are no existing secondary sources. How can this problem be solved? I think you cannot just say "keep" and leave to others dealing with this problem, which to me seems completely not solvable. Please, describe what your solution is, and how you will personally help make aetherometry entry honest, reputable and verifiable. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 23:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

if you're a good boy
one day i may tell you the story of One Man Gang, a notable personality i met at louisiana state penitentiary at angola. Zen Destiny 01:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea of what being a good boy is, but would be happy to hear the story. Love to see your show, but I don't even know what city it's in (plus I don't have cable or watch tv much). GangofOne 18:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Help needed: 2nd deletion reuest for Afshar experiment article
A crackpot is again requesting deletion of the article. Your vote would be appreciated. Prof. Afshar 17:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ok. Please relax, the danger is minimal. Speedy keep, perhaps? GangofOne 18:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Qwiff
Hi. I noticed that you added a tag to the article Qwiff. Unfortunately, there were no comments left as to the reason for nomination. It looks like a good call; however, I have de-prodded the article and moved it to AfD. I would invite you to comment on the article's AfD page. James084 13:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Danko Georgiev
Dear GangofOne, I wish to ban Danko Georgiev from Wikipedia for his repeated accusations of Fraud to me regarding my experiment on the talk pages. My experimental results were verified by faculty from Harvard and other schools. I will not allow this idiot to ruin my reputation. He must be repudiated by the Wikipedia community. Any help you can offer in this regard would be appreciated.-- Afshar 06:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Einstein and Toblerone
Hi Gang, It wasn't your link of "Toblerone" at Albert Einstein (which was of course fine) that I was "reverting", but rather I removed the entire sentence, see Talk:Albert Einstein. Paul August &#9742; 07:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my mistake, I noticed what you really said in comment after I said that. As I already said there, you're right about the main issue. I'm fixing the Toblerone page right now. Cheers. GangofOne 07:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Your revert on the pump
Please look at the history of the pump. That section has been the source of a dynamic IP vandalizing with legal threats and link spam. I see you've edited to it, but since the chap is now persona non grata (along with their linkspam), I don't see why we should give this website's ramblings any more credence. --Golbez 09:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Since they are threatening Wikipedia, it seems relevant to Wikipedia. Just remove the links. It doesn't give them any credence, it seems to me. GangofOne 20:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Is deciding who is and is not persona non grata part of your admin privileges Golbez? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.230.206 (talk • contribs)

Admins Who Stalk, Block, Revert, Blank

 * Recently you reverted an admin's deletion. However, one of his friends came behind you and reverted you. You did nothing. The admin who you reverted wrote you a note on your user page stating that the reason he reverted the edit was that the editor was "persona non grata at Wikipedia.” There is a discussion about abuse of admin privileges and ways to stop it. Admin’s are not empowered to decide who is persona non grata and they are violating Wikipedia deletion policy by abusing their privileges to silence their critics. I wish you had responded appropriately and reverted the offending admin’s.1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.251.213 (talk • contribs) moved from top

JoeBot mistake
thank you for catching that. i will dutifully pull an arm hard for my mistake (ouch! it's my policy ;). i have encountered these kinds of quotes before, and usually catch them (and ignore the instance), and so this is the first to slip by me. i shall take measures so as this doesn't happen again (i will have JoeBot ignore any article with the word "[sic]" in it). thanks again. JoeBot 22:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Edits by --Michael C. Price on Afshar experiment page

 * Dear GangofOne, --Michael C. Price insists on using unsubstantiated claims without proper references on the article page. Regardless of the nature of his claims, I have requested that he does so, but instead he has produced at best irrelevant quotes from non-peer-reviewed sources. His edit follows:

Though Afshar's work is still the subject of ongoing interpretation and discussion, a significant portion of the scientific community is of the opinion that Afshar's experiment does not refute complementarity.

Some general criticisms are:


 * Bohr's philosophical views on the Complementarity Principle are generally seen in accordance with the Schrodinger wave equation. Since the latter is obeyed in Afshar's experiment it is not obvious how complementarity can be violated.


 * The modern understanding of quantum decoherence and its destruction of quantum interference provides a mechanism for understanding the appearance of wavefunction collapse and the transition from quantum to classical. As such there is no need, in the decoherence view, for an a priori introduction of a classical-quantum divide as enshrined by complementarity.  Any experiment that claims to violate complementarity needs to address this issue.

As Michael claims, those statments are supposedly "popular views" that preexisted my experiment, and as such must be present in peer-reviewed publication predating my work. All I have asked him to do is to provide such valid ref.s but he has persistently avoided doing so and instead engaged in personal attacks. He seems to have a lot of time on his hands to be on Wikipeida constatntly, but I don't. This is turning to oneupmanship, and I don't have time for such antcis. Maybe he would heed your request. Thanks!-- Prof. Afshar 13:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. I will be discussing this issue with Michael Price on the article talk page, and would highly appreciate if you could monitor our discussion and interject when you deem fit. I'm afraid it might get a little testy, as Michael has been persistent on personal attacks. Thanks very much for your help. Best regards.-- Prof. Afshar 17:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

TT newspapers
I'm puzzled by this edit. Please explain. Guettarda 21:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am puzzled myself. The newspaper "The Bomb" links to Nuclear weapons. If there really is a paper called The Bomb, then it should be The Bomb (newspaper), or something. I assume "The Blast" is a close competitor. How do I subscribe? --GangofOne 21:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I missed that. The Bomb has been around since the early 70s, iirc, The Blast came along in the 80s as a competitor.  They're racy gossip rags, quite entertaining if you can handle the one-sentance paragraphs - mostly gossip about politicians, not (usually) the "society" gossip.  Guettarda 00:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do they have websites? --GangofOne 01:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again
Gang - Thanks again for your suggestion regarding ulcers as a mistake in the history of science. I've been reading up on the history, and it looks like it will be perfect for my purposes. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

NHMFL
You wrote: "It is the largest and highest powered magnet laboratory, ". it says, but it doesn't say how "powerful" the fields are. --GangofOne 06:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Check out the NHMFL article now. Whomever originated the artile just did not investigate all the info Noles1984 21:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 45 T continuous, I'm impressed. Thanks. --GangofOne 22:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The Lighter Side Of Back Streets

 * Hi Gang !

I put some Pep Talk on my user page, of which you might like to partake. You have some mean one on yours as well. I took mine from a guy who apparantly wrote on Wikipedia more than 250 years ago.


 * Thanks for adding to an Alice Stewart remark.

Respect, (Lunarian 10:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC))
 * Hi Lunarian, Nice Vico quote. I don't know what you refer to here: "adding to an Alice Stewart remark." Maybe you have me confused with some other Gang? --GangofOne 21:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This ?, hopefully nothing to be ashamed of ?
 * ( I may be slow to react, but when I do it's from the heart. Cheers! Lunarian)
 * Ah, I see. Only a few months and I completely forgot about that and Alice Stewart; thanks for the reminder. If you know anything interesting about Costa de Beauregard, let me know. He is an interesting case. Best wishes. --GangofOne 04:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles
Wikipedians with articles presently is up for deletion at MfD. Please consider participating in that discussion. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 21:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics participation
You received this message because your were on the old list of WikiProject Physics participants.

On 2008-06-25, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date.

If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the current list of WikiProject Physics participants. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Charles H, Townes has died
You reverted a death notice; Charles H. Townes has indeed died.

Beamjockey (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * My mistake. I thought he was immortal. GangofOne (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Open Wikipedia Ranking


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Open Wikipedia Ranking, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * The page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. (See section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.
 * It appears to be a test page. (See section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do, and take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
 * It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the page because at best it was an WP:A7 non-notable website and at worst it appeared like you'd written it to make a WP:POINT about something. If you are unhappy with something on Wikipedia creating a page like this is not really the best way to go about resolving things. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

PBC Foundation
Thank you for your appropriate comment regarding PBC Foundation. I fail to see why this should be merged back or externally linked from the disease and deleted! It may only represent an under-recognized disorder, although there are many similar patient charities dismissed as Other stuff exists, but it has contributed to major publications and had national media coverage ... Any further advice? Jrfw51 (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Article for Deletion/Keeping
Hey hope you are doing well. There is a page you have contributed to that is being considered for deletion: List of Christian Nobel laureates. You are welcome to put in any input on the issues by going to the page and clicking on the link for that article. Jobas (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Harris. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Bot, In hopes that someday you will attain intelligence, let me just say here/now that it is ambiguous to me as well, maybe someone else will figure it out.GangofOne (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of online encyclopedias, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages AIME, SPE and SWE. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Christian Transhumanist Association (June 5)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheSandDoctor was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Christian Transhumanist Association and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the.
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! VQuakr (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Possible copyright violations reverted.
I have reverted your additions to Bloomberg Billionaires Index and List of members of the Forbes 400 as these appear to be substantial copyright violations. Please note that we can not copy large lists compiled by private intellectual property owners. bd2412 T 16:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for you. Facts are not copyrightable. GangofOne (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Intellectual property lawyer hat on. Facts are not, but the presentation of facts can be. Are you collecting substantially all of the same pieces of information as the copyright-protected publications are presenting? Intellectual property lawyer hat off. bd2412  T 20:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Answer to question: yes. But not convinced by that. Take it to Dispute resolution noticeboard. Dispute opened. We need legal advice here. You are a lawyer, in fact?GangofOne (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am a lawyer, in fact - in intellectual property for twelve years. bd2412  T 22:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

DRN case closed
Thank you for seeking assistance with the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Unfortunately, the case you filed had to be closed as it did not meet the minimum DRN criteria. There was not an extensive enough talkpage discussion. Please use a talkpage to discuss ways to improve the article. If, after a good collaborative effort is made, a dispute still exists, you should feel welcome to refile. Nihlus 06:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a legal matter. Non lawyer discussion is pointless on talk page. Wikimedia should care. It's their project. Get a Wikimedia lawyer to look at it, save time.GangofOne (talk) 06:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

verbiage pasted from there, for the future.

==== 1.4.1 Summary of dispute by bd2412 ==== Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Although the information in these lists is factual, the respective businesses (Forbes and Bloomberg) make creative decisions with respect what other information to present (dollar amounts, age of the subject, field of industry). The facts are not protected, but the "selection and arrangement" is. Copying this complete group of information, as    was done in this case, is likely actionable under copyright law, and should be avoided. bd2412 T 22:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC) === 1.4.2 User talk:GangofOne discussion === quickie legal question : bd2412 says he/she is a lawyer (presumably in USA). I am not a lawyer. bd2412 above talks of author's "creative decisions". It is not clear there are any creative decisions in the original, just practical decisions. I hope others will have lawyerly input, this type of issue happens all the time on Wikipedia.

Draft:Christian Transhumanist Association concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Christian Transhumanist Association, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ROOT, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cling ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/ROOT check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/ROOT?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Christian Transhumanist Association


Hello, GangofOne. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Christian Transhumanist Association".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.  DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Your edit to "Julian Day"
I checked the equation, as explained below, with the source, Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac 2nd ed p. 604, and found the article agreed with the source before your change.

JDN = (1461 × (Y + 4800 + (M − 14)/12))/4 +(367 × (M − 2 − 12 × ((M − 14)/12)))/12 − (3 × ((Y + 4900 + (M - 14)/12)/100))/4 + D − 32075

Left paren: 11

Right paren: 11

Below, first line is Wikipedia 9 Febrary 2019 version Second line is GangOfOne's version (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_day&oldid=893204246) Third line is version I typed directly from my copy of book at 20:00 UT 19 April 2019.

JDN = (1461 × (Y + 4800 + (M − 14)/12))/4 +(367 × (M − 2 − 12 × ((M − 14)/12)))/12 − (3 × ((Y + 4900 + (M - 14)/12)/100))/4 + D − 32075 JDN = (1461 × (Y + 4800 + (M − 14)/12))/4 +(367 × (M − 2 − 12 × ((M − 14)/12)))/12) − (3 × ((Y + 4900 + (M - 14)/12)/100))/4 + D − 32075 JD = (1461 x (Y + 4800 + (M - 14)/12))/4 + (367 x (M - 2 - 12 x ((M - 14)/12)))/12 - (3 x ((Y + 4900 + (M - 14)/12)/100))/4 + D - 32075

Repeating the Wikipedia 9 Febrary 2019 version on the first line below and the version I typed on the second line below, but modifying the spacing in my typed version to facilitate comparison:

JDN = (1461 × (Y + 4800 + (M − 14)/12))/4 +(367 × (M − 2 − 12 × ((M − 14)/12)))/12 − (3 × ((Y + 4900 + (M - 14)/12)/100))/4 + D − 32075 JD = (1461 x (Y + 4800 + (M - 14)/12))/4 +(367 x (M - 2 - 12 x ((M - 14)/12)))/12 - (3 x ((Y + 4900 + (M - 14)/12)/100))/4 + D - 32075

This shows the Wikipedia 9 Febrary 2019 version agrees with the book.

Jc3s5h (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You convinced me; 11!=12. (I ran the code, seems to give right answers.)
 * I ran the code too, back in 2017. I started at Julian day 0. The algorithm is supposed to be valid for non-negative Julian days. In my test it worked as far back as Julian day -32394, but that could vary depending on how it is implemented in the computer language. Various ways of ignoring remainders from division give different results once the divisor or dividend are negative.
 * But every indication I have is that it works for all Julian days 0 or greater, until the numbers get to big for the type of variable chosen represent the numbers. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

David Ray Griffin
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:David Ray Griffin § Description and interests. Thank you. Roy McCoy (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)