User talk:Steuard

Hi. Good to see you using Wikipedia - I remember you from rabt and aft :)

Re your question about what the contents of Steuard Jensen was - here is the text prior to deletion. (minus wikilinks)


 * Steuard Jensen is known as an amateur Tolkien scholar whose many notable contributions include a comprehensive essay detailing theories on the origins of Tom Bombadil, a fictional character conceived by JRR Tolkien and the FAQ for the newsgroups rec.arts.books.tolkien and alt.fan.tolkien.


 * Born on August 20, 1976, in Great Falls, Montana, USA to Walt and Karen Jensen, Steuard was introduced to Tolkien at a tender age of 6 when his father started reading The Hobbit to him every night.


 * He is currently a research student at the University of Chicago and has worked on some problems related to tachyon condensation in various string theories and boundary states in compactified conformal field theories, and is are currently studying the effects of membrane instantons in heterotic M-theory and the effects of worldsheet instantons on Kaluza-Klein monopoles with fellow researcher Jeff Harvey.

Morwen - Talk 21:26, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I'm glad to see what was actually there. And my word, but that was a rather silly little article. : ) Now that I've seen it, I'm doubly glad that it was deleted in short order (and I can very much see why it was swiftly tagged as "vanity"!) Thanks for your confidence that I wasn't the author, by the way; I've just gone through and removed the wikilinks to that page from a handful of articles where they had been added.  (I guess it's nice to know that I've got "fans" out there, but still...)--Steuard 21:38, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, it was obviously not you because it was made by User:203.26.24.211], which is slightly in [[Australia. ;)   Since you are here, could I ask you please to engage in a little soviet-style revisionism on your copy of etext 3.1?   I would be more specific but I don't want to leave a google trail. [so why aren't I doing this in private email? *grin*] but my user page and my birthday and my website ought to be enough to figure it out.  Morwen - Talk 21:46, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I wondered if it had come from that address; once I noticed those wikilinks that had been added to my name in various places, I looked to see who had put them there. (I'd love to visit Australia, mind you, but I don't think I'd spend my time there adding self-indulgent Wikipedia articles!)


 * As for the E-text, I'll be happy to oblige... but do you prefer that I make the revision one word or two (if you follow me)? (And assuming that's always been you, you just broke my brain! :) I wonder if anyone will be confused, or even notice.  On another note, wouldn't the change itself leave something of a Google trail?)  Also, I'm only planning on changing the chapter list page at the moment; changing the text-file itself feels like a bigger step (and of course, closer to soviet-style revisionism), but you can try to talk me into it if you're really eager.  But if you do, do it in private mail, so we can be more plain! : ) --Steuard 22:16, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Have replied there. Morwen - Talk 22:26, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hail to the king
Steuard,

Your "prom king" story is the shizzle. I greatly enjoyed reading it. Graft 20:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks! It was a lot of fun being in it, too. --Steuard 21:22, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the paper
Hey, thanks for the paper. I'll reply to you on the talk page once I've gone through it. HappyCamper 00:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Greetings
Hey Steuard. Thanks for the note. Yeah, I started to get a sneaking suspicion and then looked at the edit history to confirm. I skimmed the talk page stuff, but no interest in arguing about it. Most of this is pure fact with no interpretation involved. The whole 'Endor is not the same as Middle-earth' thing... just stunningly ridiculous. I've been kicking around here for a couple of years now, but generally not putting alot of time into it. --CBDunkerson 22:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

TOE
Hi. Try to maintain a fair POV, without favor towards ST or anything else for that matter. I do realize that this may be hard for you considering you specialize in that field but still. Let's discuss things generally first unless deleting/removing nonesense or subjective remarks/paragraphs. Otherwise wikipedia would not function if everyone delets whatever one doesn't see favourable. BTW: String theory is just as non-mainstraim as everything else for that matter, if one considers mainstream as being commercially utilized. Best regards,Slicky 01:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Moreover please, please always cite from verfieable, reknowned sources. e.g."Critics contend that these claims are invalid and that work on Heim theory is flawed in a variety of ways."-> This is not encyclopedic. Thanks.Slicky 01:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Okay i majorly revised TOE. Please don't misinterpret, critic is good, in fact way more citicism and less positivism would always be favourable, however you gotta use verifiable and serious sources and always link them (even though one read this somewhere recently, it is not enough to just claim "critics say..." but needs corroboration in articles and numbers - tedious but rewarded in that others research more and get a broader angle). We do more harm than good if we write things that favour our view and censor others. Let's not go there - we all do that sometimes, but it's best to amend this the instant one gets aware such a mistake. Also always research the web, otherwise one is prone to a too narrow minded view. PS: This does not particularly pertain to you, but is meant in a generic sense. Slicky 10:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention, please take a look at TOE i tried to make it more comprehensive and expand it forward so that what it needs now is more quality to be brought in.
 * Generally i believe that any scientific input is a valuable one, the theories, the math, the ideas it all progresses science in the bigger picture and there is no true rivalry, where is on the other hand, takes place on another level: the economic one, meaning confining, limiting science by cutting budgets, funds, grants and especially patents.

The reason why i was concerned with you regarding Heim is that his works are only available in german, as you obviously are american it is quite likely that you relied on the various sources on the web. Their inherent problem though is at the same time what is a prob about Heims theory itself: its unpopularity. If you have to few values of measurement you cannot get an average, which holds true as many sources promote wrong information (there are papers as to why and who started this slandering by renonwned phycicists). Heims theory is definitely science, and one only has to read a bit into his books to realize that without a website summing his whole life and work up in 5 sentences. Much of it isn't even the concern of string theory per se like qualitatively describing features like consciousness etc. The problem is that alone the word consciousness tends to arise suspicion or esoteric associations, and is generally regarded as non-scientific, especially for a phycicist. I am a theoretical phycicist and also studying molecular biology with specialization in neurology. So as far as i value the modelling of the neocortical column (blue brain), as worried am i also that concurrently not more effort is being done regarding the mathematical description of qualitative features apparently arising from certain orders of structure. Moreover only who has done the basics, that is a theory of everything, is really apt todo so, as this is the foundation it builds upon. Critically it has to be noted that much in Heims work has been lost in the translation process (handicap) and other than scientific value, which is the premise to begin with, one doesn't really know what he is in for. String theory is another problem on another level: constant mindless promotion in tv, news etc. lacking a scientific background polishing everything up as fancy as possible whereas math should stand instead. It builds upon the same propaganda machinery that Einstein does, which is now regarded by the common people as completely uncritical. That is not the fault of the phycicists behind it but of the media to constantly try to make profit from violence, drama and mystery. At last don't even get me started on Einstein and quantum mechanics. "Since then, I have discovered that Einstein's theories in Physics have been given "sacrosanct" status, placed beyond criticism, as if he was no mere mortal. Deifying him - making him a "secular saint" - is hardly consistent with good science." BTW: I am not a fan of any of those theorie but second their partial value. In my experience the main reason and biggest mistake why we are getting nowhere is because Einstein who revolutionized physics...... Also take a look here [] PS: All that doesn't mean you don't speak german, i just inferred so from your page. Slicky 09:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

B. Heim
Protosimplex is not just pro, it's a mere Heim site regarding his background and theory. The unofficial offical ;) heim-theory.com has been set in motion by students who were trying to comprehend the mass formula but even after months of intensive years they only made little progress, which can be seen also on the page protosimplex. Also i never pointed out that mainstream physicists slandered Heim but apparently some journalist did so, and this is what ultimately manifests in web-sites, bulletin boards and in the public opinion whether web-search-based or not. There are only very few remarkable scientists working on Heim theory, which are Jochen Häuser, Walter Dröscher, W.von Ludwiger all of which learned extensively directly from Heim. So its mostly their future works i am interested in, and i would recommend to read their papers, the heim-theory.com page as i pointed out is done by a student effort. Even though i consider string theory, heim theory, LQG (which are the only relevant as of now; although the various other field theories of course are just as important but much of their work is incorporated in LQG et al) as essentially flawed and wrong, progress is still progress. Just because you cannot use them for a TOE doesn't mean their effort is in vain, which is what i tried to point out in the first place: any scientific work is a contribution to science. Who knows where certain ideas of string theory, etc. will end or emerge up to help us explain new experimental discoveries, create novel algorithms... What really startled me back then is how i and everyone else around me is being persuade to strip conventional rationality and to start out in a completely new concept where one doesn't have to prove anything anymore but rather stretch his theories in a way they turn out in favor to the various experimental and let the theory itself be proof for its correctness (a bit exaggerated, but virtually true). Esentially i am talking about the dawn of the theory of relativity and a new age of physics: the einstein age, where we didn't question phys. so much anymore but rather pile up and pile up piece for piece instead of admitting for once that not every concept plays out and from time to time we gotta make something new from scratch. Yet this is regarded as a devilish thing todo because one would therefore have to block out the masters voice for once and all that is supposedly new is actually based on the idea on einsteins, plancks etc, assertions. Although planck once said that physics is done in generational steps, as those in power for funding etc, are the older generations who are already so convinced/blinded of the theories of their time that the won't let any new ideas in. And as doubtful all that may sound, start to dig up a bit in the internet, as we all know science and economy is NOT mutually exclusive.

PS: Just think for once, who far we are experimentally, yet how little, close to nothing we know about our fundamental universe. I strongly doubts that we even know the fundamental forces (apart from the electriomag one which we know the best due its interaction in the macroscopic). We know now that even maxwells unification isn't the last word spoken. The bigger one's picture becomes the more one realized how close to nothing we actually now as far as unification goes, yet how much ink (theories) we have to ultimately come up with something conclusive. The REAL reason why nothing progresses is NOT because the universe (at our current level of abstraction, that is scientific models) is so overly complex and defys human understanding but because humans tend to group. And radical thinkers are more than ever suppressed in our scientific community. No one dares to even say something that can potentially play out as stupid unless it is already so elevated that only a small group of people understand parts of it (despite that it may be just as stupid but more elaborated). Thus in the effort to understand this, one naturally brings in his own ideas building up motivation and getting lesser and lesser critical. At least, i have been there and in any natural science at university - Einstein is part of some curriculum, as far as physics goes to such a degree that back then we would have thought of it as.

I too was once blinded, but some articles in "the scientist" stirred up interest and i researched deeper, leaving me quite perplexed about the true nature of human science, and not the spottless abstract ideal of science, which does not exist. What was it again "system of knowledge gained by systematic research and organization into general laws" - well that may all be but the system has changed,...radically over the past 50 years.

Prolly the only thing that keeps me sane is molecular biology, because in this discipline actual scientific principles still apply and experimentation comes first. (okay, in reality, now more then ever, especially economic principles comes first, but i think you know what i mean)

Lemme know what you think. Slicky 15:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Tolkien and Catholicism
Just a quick note about your edit here, where you say "In what sense was Tolkien a "Catholic Convert"? Wasn't he raised Catholic?". I agree that Tolkien shouldn't be listed in that category, but whoever added it seems to be either misunderstanding, or misrepresenting, Tolkien's mother's conversion to Catholicism during Tolkien's childhood. Technically, before that, Tolkien would not have been Catholic, though you can also say that he was raised Catholic from that point on. This happened in 1900, when Tolkien was about 8 years old. But hey, you probably knew that all already. Carcharoth 14:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Image talk:The isle of numenor map.gif
This looks to me like an extremely clear copyright violation. (The maps are the primary content of this book!) Any counter-arguments?--Steuard 18:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC) = Extracts of images -- even from a book of images -- for the purpose of editorial commentary is allowed under copyright law and Wik policy. I could NOT find a licensing category that would properly cover it though. Any ideas on how I should list it? But I do NOT consider it a cop-vio. -- Jason Palpatine 21:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC) (speak your mind | contributions)

Uranus
See deletion page.  Serendi pod ous  13:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, try it now.  Serendi pod ous  17:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've subbed out the pic but for some reason it isn't registering on the Uranus page.  Serendi pod ous  19:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorted.  Serendi pod ous  19:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)