User talk:Mikevf

March 2009
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam); and,
 * 4) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. dougweller (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ''Actually you've broken this and could be blocked, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. Please don't re-add this again however '' dougweller (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Doug is correct, I initially violated wikipedia policy both out of ignorance and frustration. The article posted after my father’s death was extremely pejorative and when I was unable to correct I repeatedly posted to the site that the VF family viewed the article as libelous. Doug stepped in and admonished me, but then another admin stepped in and helped steer the article back toward NPOV for which I am very thankful.

Current version
Hi Mikevf, I was curious if you felt that the current version of the Tom Van Flandern more or less addressed the issues that you felt were misrepresentations of fact? I'd be happy to have this discussion on the talk page of the article, if you would prefer, but that currently seems to be a venue for unproductive discussion. ClovisPt (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ClovisPt, your edits did indeed address nearly all of my concerns, THANK YOU. I think the quote about free energy is misleading, the salon quote is innapropriate and that there should be links to the relevant journal papers (pro and con).  But as is I think the article is a huge improvement and is acceptable.  Thanks for the hard work. Wading through the volumes of discussion and enduring the edit war can't have been fun.  Mikevf (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Summary for mediators
Here's a summary of the disagreement (sorry about the length).


 * Altered quotes from the NPA web site are being used in the article to imply Tom's beliefs. The dispute is whether it is appropriate to present altered quotes that imply Tom rejected quantum physics and relativity when direct quotes from Tom clearly show he accepted Lorentzian Relativity.


 * While it could be fairly said "Tom favored replacing Special Relativity with Lorentzian relativity and Tom rejected the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum physics", efforts to make this distinction have been edited out repeatedly, most recently 4 times within a 24 hour span by user 6324.


 * For context I've included the unadulterated quotes from the NPA site, the relevant text inserted in the article and relevant quotes from Tom Van Flandern:


 * Actual quotes from the NPA site "The Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA) is devoted mainly to broad-ranging, fully open-minded criticism, at the most fundamental levels, of the often irrational and unrealistic doctrines of modern physics and cosmology; and to the ultimate replacement of these doctrines by much sounder ideas developed with full respect for evidence, logic, and objectivity. The great majority of us are intensely critical of special relativity, general relativity, big bang theory, and Copenhagen quantum physics."


 * Here's what user 6324 put in the article "He was a prominent member of a group called the Natural Philosophy Alliance, devoted to 'open-minded criticism... of the often irrational and unrealistic doctrines of modern physics and cosmology', especially relativity and quantum physics, 'and to the ultimate replacement of these doctrines'".


 * Here's are some relevant direct quotes from Van Flandern "faster-than-light force propagation is fully consistent with Lorentzian relativity, but is a test that special relativity cannot pass", "Something is wrong with science - fundamentally wrong. Theories keep getting stranger and stranger. This is certainly true of physics, which has backed itself into apparent contradictions, leading directly to the dominant Copenhagen view that 'there is no deep reality to the world around us'.
 * I ask moderators to review the above and help mediate a solution. I assert it's unfair and inaccurate for user 6324xxxx to use altered 3rd party quotes to imply Tom rejected relativity or quantum physics. The editor's inference that Tom "rejected modern physics" is over reaching and not supported by citations.Mikevf (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If a man has a pet duck and names it "Rex the Dog", a Wikipedia article about that man shouldn't say he had a pet dog, especially not if an abundance of verifiable reputable sources makes it quite clear that "Rex the Dog" was a duck.


 * A little background might be helpful for some editors here: There is an interpretation of special relativity known as Lorentzian relativity, which is empirically indistinguishable from Einsteinian relativity. This means that all phenomena according to this theory are relativistic, regardless of which interpretation one espouses. In contrast, Tom Van Flandern espoused a set of ideas that entail grossly NON-relativistic phenomena, such as superluminal propagation of forces, etc., which is explicitly ruled out in the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity, just as it is ruled out in the Einsteinian interpretation.  Countless quotes from reputable sources can be presented to support this fact if necessary. Thus, TVF rejected relativity, as does the Natural Philosophy Alliance, of which he was a prominent member.


 * Now, it so happens that, for purposes of obfuscating his rejection of relativity, TVF chose to refer to his blatently non-relativistic ideas as "Lorentzian relativity", but like a man with the pet duck named "Rex the Dog", his ideas were still a duck. The fact that he chose to erroneously refer to his beliefs about non-relativistic phenomena by a name that signifies relativistic phenomena doesn't changes the verifiable facts of the case.


 * One option for the article would be to describe all this in excruciating detail, but it wouldn't paint a pretty picture of the subject, and frankly I don't think it's warranted, especially given the marginal notability of the subject. As an aside, I'll also mention that the disputed sentence is actually describing the Natural Philosophy Alliance (of which TVF was a prominent member), which publishes works like "Goodbye Relativity, Hello Reality", so it's hard to understand why anyone considers it an outrage to state that the NPA rejects relativity.6324xxxx (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If a moderater has questions about or concerns with my arguments I'd be happy to address them. I am however not responding directly to user 6324xxxx.  As I stated on the discussion page for the article about Tom Van Flandern, I've found attempts at dialog with user 6324xxxx unproductive.Mikevf (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Wills Primary (Barbados)
A tag has been placed on Wills Primary (Barbados) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 00:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Update: Request for speedy deletion was declined as article is about a school and evidently schools are explicitly ineligable for speedy deletion.Mikevf (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wills Primary (Barbados)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Wills Primary (Barbados), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Primary school with no claim of notability.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No objection to deletion. I noted that a wikipedia article had a list of Barbados schools with links to mostly empty articles.  I filled one in on the assumption that would be helpful.  If info about the schools is deemed not notworthy then by all means delete it.  Thx -Mike

Re:Your Message on the Van Flandern Article
If you reply, please do wherever you prefer, I watch pages where I post messages. I have had a brief look at the discussions of that article, before engaging with 6324xxxx; I am not keen to get into this dispute, but my administrator position sometimes obliges me to (6324xxxx was reported to WP:AIV). I feel several editors of that article might have COI; this is not an impediment, but a complication. Your disclosure at your user page and at my talk is appreciated (would be great if other editors followed that). My interest in this story is to have high-quality, WP:NPOV on wikipedia, and my concern with 6324xxxx is mostly expressed at their talk page. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I posted a proposed revision of your father's article on his discussion page. Some of the new material I pulled from your comments from previous discussions on that same page.  I am in need of the sources for some of the quotes you listed.  Could you please review the proposed revision and provide any citations that may help the article stand on its accuracy?  Your could also comment on article itself if there are items you do not think are appropriate.  Thanks Akuvar (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information you posted on my talk page. One item I am having probelms with is the asteroid naming citation.  I can find plenty of references that the asteroid was named for your father, but I cannot find the quote anywhere about why it was named.  Only on gonzoscience is it listed, and even then they don't cite it (maybe from the original Minor Planets magazine).  Any ideas? Akuvar (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Akuvar, I posted on your talk page a link to IAU Minor Planet Center that has the specific naming citation originally published the Minor Planet Curcular. I'm posting again here as well. Because some editors have suggested that the this honor was purchased please see this link for how names are chosen, which clearly states these names can not be purchased. Mikevf (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing it. The first two links were just alphabetical lists.  The third sent me to an incredibly long document that did indeed have about 40 citations in it for naming asteroids, but I didn't see TVF.  Found George Takei (way to go, Sulu!).  I'll try again but if you can nail it down for me, I'd appreciate it. Akuvar (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I updated the link and directions for getting there on your talk. Unfortuately formatting on the page with listing of citations is browser specific.  I suggest doing a search for 65123 once you get to the page.Mikevf (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tom Van Flandern
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Tom Van Flandern. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Tom Van Flandern (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Salon article
You posted a comment about the salon article on your father's discussion page. In it you mention a second article published by another journalist and mention that it should be listed, too. But you do not give a link to that second article, do you have one? I would like to read it. Also, some of the links you have provided to me in the past just take me to sites that require a payment to view the article, or just a bibliography page of an article that is stored (also available for a fee). This may be the only way to see these articles, but it doesn't do anyone any good. You can reply here or on my talk page, I am monitoring them both. thanks Akuvar (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom Bethell wrote a book on the topic http://www.slideshare.net/jwilkins27/questioning-einstein-is-relativity-necessary-by-tom-bethell-5-star-review. He also wrote an article for American Spectator the archive isn't available for free.  Here's a reprint hosted on another site: http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm.  Frankly this is a common problem... many of Tom's published papers and articles about him are only available to subscribers of the publications, especially the science journals.  Links to republished copies copies on 3rd party sites get removed as being "original content".  I'm not a wiki pro so not sure what actual policy is or how to work around this dilemma.Mikevf (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate the thanks you gave me on your father's discussion page. It is probably more appropriate to thank me on my talk page rather than in an open discussion. It is appreciated, though, it is a little bit of work keeping the haters at bay. But those of us who remain in the East and don't want to see your father's name dragged through the mud will remain vigilant! Akuvar (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Fulton Gap
First, my condolences on the recent decease of your mother.

I would like to point out that the recently discovered Fulton Gap may confirm Dr. Van Flandern's theory of planetary formation and of gravity.

It has been a long time since you have posted on this page, so I don't know if you will be reading this posting.--Capt. Ciel (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)