User talk:SteveBaker/archive24

Plasma cosmology
Your thoughts on the edits I made to plasma cosmology would be greatly appreciated. Goodsheard1 (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * NOTE: User:Goodsheard1 is a sock puppet of User:ScienceApologist and has been blocked indefinitely. SteveBaker (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

RFC
I've started another RfC on plasma cosmology. This annoying sockpuppet poisons suggestions though. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Reversion at FTN
Why did you revert BlueBoar? You must know the guidelines, and you didn't even give an edit summary, so I'm confused. Dougweller (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * My bad - I just got a shiney new tablet computer...and one slip of the finger on a teeny-tiny touch screen and Very Bad Things happen. I thought I'd successfully reverted my change...maybe not? SteveBaker (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That's so unconvincing it's actually rather funny. Presumably that was the intention. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No. That's really what happened...I fat-fingered it...hence the lack of edit summary. (Actually, looking back - I actually agreed with what he said. SteveBaker (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC input needed
Hi. Your name was selected at random from Feedback Request Service as an editor that may be willing to comment on policy-based RfCs. There is  an RfC about the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard that could use some input, if you are so inclined. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Magazine
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Magazine. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Please comment on Talk:Romania
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Romania. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Celtic F.C. supporters
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Celtic F.C. supporters. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You haven't been forgotten . ..
We still speak of you. regards, Bielle (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Flatterer! SteveBaker (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Orfur
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Orfur. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know
In response to a question at the refdesk talk page, I referred to a thread where your contribution was my argument against excessive wikilawyering. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Question_feedback. Regards! Still miss your contributions at at the refdesk, --NorwegianBluetalk 23:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Australian Greens
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Australian Greens. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Orgastic potency article
SteveBaker, will you continue to help out regarding the concerns of this article? Like I stated at the noticeboard, discussion on the talk page about this has slowed and it's not clear what should be done with the article, aside from what you stated (but refer to what I recently relayed on the noticeboard, in that link, about that) or taking it to WP:AfD. And now the creator of the article has removed the fringe tag from the article and created a Status section about the status of "orgastic potency" not being clear because "it remains little discussed in academic literature"; this is WP:Original research/dishonest WP:Editorializing. The fact that "orgastic potency" and/or any of Reich's theories are discussed little (very little) in academic literature makes the status of the theories fringe. And to state that "in 2010, Reich's experiments investigating the biological grounding of the orgasm theory were independently confirmed"? If that line is not simply stating that his having done these experiments is confirmed, then it is a lousy attempt to make it seem as though "orgastic potency" is supported by science. The only things about "orgastic potency" that are supported by science are the aspects of it that are supported in Masters and Johnson's four-stage model of physiological responses during sexual stimulation -- the human sexual response cycle. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)

 * To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

'''This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!'''

Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way.
 * Background

Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process.

An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here.


 * Progress so far

Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created.

As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May)

Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes.

Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement:
 * Proposed changes

1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum. 2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Dispute resolution.
 * Similar to the one that was deployed, with great success, to the DRN.
 * Structured based on the specific issues most commonly dealt with at each forum.
 * Designed to improve the quality of requests for DR and the efficiency of DR at that forum.
 * Applicable at following noticeboards: Dispute resolution, Neutrality, Reliable Sources, Original Research, Biographies of Living Persons, Notability noticeboard, Fringe theories, Conflict of Interest, Ethnic and cultural conflicts, External links, Third opinion, Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee.
 * Forms will merely fill out any existing templates (such as Arbcom's) and create a markup-free form in line with specific noticeboard practices otherwise.
 * Example form fields: What pages are involved? What users are involved? What is the issue? What resolution is desired?
 * This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute.
 * It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent.
 * If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors).
 * The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?".
 * Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired.
 * Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline.
 * Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time.

3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Lluvia de peces
Hi,

I saw in your AfD comment for Lluvia de Peces, that you found the source of the persistent rumor that the rain of fishes was confirmed by a Nat Geo team. I also ran across the explanation of the mix up with the Australian program, but it was just speculation. I was wondering if you had that field report or something similar that we could cite and clear up the misinformation on Wikipedia.

Thanks,K e rowyn Leave a note 05:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I found the original report] by a guy named "Arthur Shwab" who was a student at Seattle university doing an "International Development Internship" which entailed visiting Honduras. When he travelled to the area where the Lluvia de peces occurs, he wrote a visit report claiming that the fish had been washed up from underground rivers/caves - and citing the results of the Nat Geo expedition to the Honduras as proof of that.  In email he said that he knew about the expedition to Honduras in the 1970's from having seen the Nat Geo "Wild Case Files" TV episode on the "rain of fish".  Sadly, he's mistaken.  That episode (which I watched on DVD just a few days ago) only talks about a similar rain of fishes in the Australian outback and the 1974 Nat Geo expedition to investigate that.  The TV show never once mentions the Honduras incident or any expedition to Honduras.  So this guy was sadly mistaken - and his single, simple error has been propagated everywhere!  When you think about it:


 * What are the odds that they'd send out TWO teams to check out the phenomenon in two different continents within just a few years of each other?
 * What are the odds that a Nat Geo expedition to Honduras would have gone totally unrecorded anywhere?
 * What are the odds that their findings would be IDENTICAL to the Australian expedition's findings?
 * Having done that - why wouldn't a 1990's TV show dedicated to "raining fish" fail to mention this supposed second expedition who supposedly went to the Honduras and supposedly discovered the exact same thing?


 * Sadly, at least one other reporter seems to have read Shwab's erroneous report of "A Nat Geo expedition to Honduras"...and the bogus claim has spread everywhere by non-fact-checking journalists.


 * So, for sure, this is a single incident of one guy getting the details about some half-forgotten TV show wrong...which has then been "inflated" to factual status by our so-called "Reliable Sources" (NOT!).


 * Score one point for Wikipedia!


 * I don't think it's our business to say that there was no expedition - it's not our business to correct other people's stories - but we certainly shouldn't claim that there was such an expedition without reliable sources.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Cheers
Cheers for the review, I appreciated your comments, :) IRWolfie- (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deception
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Deception. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Amanda Bowman for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amanda Bowman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Amanda Bowman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lasersaur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Newcastle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

SchuminWeb RfA
Hello Steve. You may be interested in commenting on the RfA at Arbitration/Requests/Case relating to the Admin SchuminWeb with whom we both had considerable issues with his misconduct as an Administrator about a year ago as you may recall from this posting of yours to his talk page which he subsequently deleted. Centpacrr (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting a comment Steve. Centpacrr (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem - I'd half-forgotten that sorry incident, but re-reading it brought the awfulness of a rogue admin back into sharp focus. It's always a shame to lose an enthusiastic editor - but removing his admin status is essential given this prolonged pattern of abuse.  Reading of all of the other cases of misuse of his admin status reminded me of my comment at the time that admins are supposed to be the servants of editors, not their masters.  Thanks for pointing out the RfA. SteveBaker (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And thank you as well sir. I had not had any further interactions myself with this Admin since early this year, but when I was asked to comment in the RfA on the events of 2011 and saw that he had not changed his stripes I felt obligated to do so. In my review of those events I reread your comments at the time on the Leena.png kerfuffle which I found right on point and thus felt it was appropriate to advise you to the RfA as well. Centpacrr (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah - I hadn't had any interaction with him either before or since. I was exceedingly angry with him at the time because there was unanimous consensus between very experienced editors that he was wrong and he just refused to address the issues that so many of us had raised.  When the Lenna issue was settled (imho, correctly) and the kerfuffle died down, I just assumed that he'd been having a bad week - and left it at that.  But from reading this RfA, I was amazed to see that it's such a long-standing pattern - I'm amazed that he didn't get de-sysopped a year ago.  Action needs to be taken - and it looks like it will.  SteveBaker (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your second added comment on the RfA. Indeed one of SchuminWeb's most egregious behaviors was Wikistalking and using his powers as an Admin to retaliate against those who disagree with him. After several deletions and other actions of his that I had challenged were overturned, in overt retaliation he then systematically went through all of the images which I had uploaded over time (most of which I had created, otherwise owned the copyright, or were clearly in PD) and nominated almost all of them for deletion on a variety of specious grounds resulting in the necessity of having to waste large amounts of time to defend them.


 * In the course of this "campaign" against my image file contributions he also gratuitously accused me of "vandalism" on the completely unsupported grounds that I was "uploading disruptive images with no encyclopedic value" whatever that was supposed to mean. (It means nothing, actually.) Even if that were true (which is wasn't, of course), that does not in any way constitute "vandalism" (which is defined as "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia such as by adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense") and is a very serious charge and violation of assuming good faith for any editor to make, and especially so for an Admin. Fortunately it looks as if his days of tormenting us "ordinary" editors are over. Centpacrr (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah. The problem is that it's perfectly OK for an Admin who finds a truly disruptive editor to go back through their contributions to see what other things they've done wrong, then work on correcting them.  That can certainly result in undeserved charges of Wikistalking.  But in your case, neither the original images, nor the ones he subsequently RfD'ed were "disruptive" and what you did was about as far from vandalism as I could imagine!  Erroneously calling someone a "vandal" is an awful thing to do - especially when you're wearing the "admin" badge so prominently.  I count myself lucky that he didn't put me through that after the Lenna incident last year.  But I think we can trust ArbCom to do the right thing here. SteveBaker (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yup, me too. Thanks for your help and have a good holiday. Cheers. Centpacrr (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Steve: FYI. Regards. Centpacrr (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. I'm not familiar with how ArbComm works - but it seems to me that their reluctance to act without SW having presented his side of the story is rather bizarre.  I don't understand the position of User:Roger Davies in this regard.
 * WP:ADMINACCT clearly states:
 * "Administrators...may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for:
 * Failure to communicate[6] – this can be either to users...or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought)."
 * Reference [6] there points to an earlier ArbComm decision:
 * "Due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, proper communication is extremely important, and all editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues. This is especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions. Such expected communication includes: giving appropriate (as guided by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) warnings prior to, and notification messages following, their actions; using accurate and descriptive edit and administrative action summaries; and responding promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about their administrative actions."
 * We know for sure from his tweets that he's fully aware of this RfA. This is more like a defendant in a court of law "taking the 5th" than it is a risk of failure of due process.  His failure to respond to the RfC and RfA after several days, even though he's clearly fully aware of the action, is by itself clear grounds for immediate de-sysopping per WP:ADMINACCT.  It seems to me that it is crucial to ArbComm's processes that deliberate failure to respond when clearly notified should not become an easy defense against whatever is being discussed.  Worse still, his failure to engage in discussion when things are going against him is (IMHO) the primary reason for opening this RfA in the first place!  Furthermore, if he truly has retired, then there is absolutely nothing to lose by de-sysopping him and it makes sense to do so "for security reasons".  I think we should routinely de-sysop retired or otherwise largely inactive admins - if for no other reason than to maintain an accurate count of how many of them we have at any given time so that we can properly react to shortages and excesses.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All excellent points, Steve, and exactly what I pointed out in the RfA and earlier RfC as how he "skated" before in December, 2011 when he disappeared the last time that things got hot. Involuntary desysopping seems pretty rare especially for "hiding in the weeds" which apparently has only happened six times, most recently in 2009. The result is that this Admin has been permitted to continue to do considerable damage for another full year and drive away I don't know how many more "ordinary" editors as well. (I was almost one of them.) I note, for instance, that looking at his logs that just a couple of days before he went "silent" on November 27 he mass deleted a couple of hundred images files. It seems to me that given the extraordinary powers that Admins have on WP, and the relatively small number there are in relation to "ordinary" editors, that the supervision of their stewardship should be much more rigid. That being said, I think the outcome in this case -- while it took a long time reach -- is a satisfactory result and that this individual will never again be an Admin on WP. Centpacrr (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All excellent points, Steve, and exactly what I pointed out in the RfA and earlier RfC as how he "skated" before in December, 2011 when he disappeared the last time that things got hot. Involuntary desysopping seems pretty rare especially for "hiding in the weeds" which apparently has only happened six times, most recently in 2009. The result is that this Admin has been permitted to continue to do considerable damage for another full year and drive away I don't know how many more "ordinary" editors as well. (I was almost one of them.) I note, for instance, that looking at his logs that just a couple of days before he went "silent" on November 27 he mass deleted a couple of hundred images files. It seems to me that given the extraordinary powers that Admins have on WP, and the relatively small number there are in relation to "ordinary" editors, that the supervision of their stewardship should be much more rigid. That being said, I think the outcome in this case -- while it took a long time reach -- is a satisfactory result and that this individual will never again be an Admin on WP. Centpacrr (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Steve: Let me know what you think of the "Additional Note" that I have just appended to my Statement on RfA. Thanks. Centpacrr (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The Arb Committee today enacted a Motion that effectively desysops SchuminWeb unless and until he responds to the Arb case, and makes that desysopping formal and permanent if he does not reply within three months. As he is now "retired" I think the possibility of ever hearing from him again is effectively zero. Thanks for your help in this. Centpacrr (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Wow! Thank you!  I'll carefully carry it over to my user page and place it in pride of place with the others I've collected over the years! SteveBaker (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Along the same line, it is very good to see your consistently-excellent contributions returning to the Science Reference Desk. Hopefully your wiki-break from the desks has been refreshing; your recent contributions have already worked to improve the overall average quality of responses.  Happy new year!  Nimur (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm just playing around over the vacation - I'll be too busy to participate much once I get back to work next week. SteveBaker (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Ref Desk
Nice to see your name there again. Bielle (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hadn't realized you were "back". Welcome back!  True story at . —Steve Summit (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

thanks for your RD response; could you add one more?
Hi, thanks for your response to me at the RD. Could you also respond to my pump idea which mentions http://i.imgur.com/StAED.png ? The snail is important (it's topologically equivalent to a long tapering funnel). Thanks. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The pressure won't gradually increase along the "snail" (as I think you imagine it would) - the pressure in an enclosed vessel equalises - so the pressure at the entrance of the snail will be the same as the exit - regardless of the shape. SteveBaker (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh. Yes, I was wondering why no one else had invented this.  This seems to be a good explanation as to why :) - thanks. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

New question at the reference desk. :)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#what_about_this_-_http:.2F.2Fwww.dynamicscience.com.au.2Ftester.2Fsolutions.2Fhydraulicus.2Fhydraulicsforceandwork2.htm

The question is... with a series of pneumatic pistons (each turning a push on one end into a push on 1:10th the area on the other) as long as the pistons can be made of infinite strength and the container supports infinite pressure, in this case can the final piston always be operated at a reasonable force? (For example by hand or via regenerative break or whatever)? Notwithstanding that the air in the chamber is by now in the metal stage? (You may need intermediate valves that open and close but the idea is to use hydraulics in series).

What do you think is the answer to this hypothetical question? Thanks. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you need to do more thinking and less asking! SteveBaker (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, steve. In the end I would be happy with a diagram showing the sudden rise in force needed to add another volume unit of gas, once the gas inside is liquid and/or solid. Can you show me this curve? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Steve,
You were harsh on me previously but it is all good. There are two additions I would like to share with you privately to the "plausible machine" that makes it extremely useful. I would like to hear your feedback and, if appropriate and warranted by your contributions (and should you so want) you can be listed as an inventor with ownership split equally between us. (Or in another proportion you suggest).

May I contact you at some email address? I was highly impressed by your analysis on this point and others, and look forward to write you the rest. 178.48.114.143 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * By the way I must say that the previous discussion was a bit misleading, but I got good answers from everyone. In fact, there is a very small container into which we would liquify helium.  So, while the car discussion was a "red herring" I now have all the physical principals needed.  I look forward to engaging with you if possible.  178.48.114.143 (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry to have come across as "harsh" - I didn't mean anything hostile about it. But there comes a point where a question has been comprehensively answered and nothing further is likely to be gained by further discussion.  I really very much doubt that you've come up with anything that hasn't been thought of (and solidly rejected) in the past.  The Wikipedia Science reference desk is stuffed full of people who think they've invented things like this and debunking them can be painful.


 * You really need to work on your knowledge of basic physics if you expect to come up with something truly new and workable. My email address is public () - and of course you can email me via Wikipedia if you prefer - use the "E-mail this user" link on the left menu.  I get a lot of mail from people with inventions like perpetual motion machines and other "free energy" devices.  I'm known for debunking such machines - and not usually in a kindly way!   However, what most people expect from me is "it won't work because this widget doesn't do that" - what I tend to point out is higher level science, like "it won't work because the second law of thermodynamics says you can't make that work no matter what you do"...this is dissatisfying for non-scientists who feel like if they could just get past this one last little problem, they could make the machine work - when in truth, science can tell you that even though we don't know why you can't fix it, you DEFINITELY can't fix it!


 * So I won't make any promises to collaborate - and I most certainly don't want to be listed as "joint inventor"...but if you have a particular question to ask, I'll try to help.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dice tower, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

On your triumphant return to the RDs
Just wanted to say that you were sorely missed for a while, and your return is much appreciated. -- Jayron  32  22:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Manometery equation
Hey there. Last week you contributed to the discussion at the now archived "Manometery equation" science reference desk question. I thought that you might be interested in knowing where the mystery 800 came from. It turns out that the question had been misstated, and the relative density of the fluid was 0.8, not 13.6. -- ToE 19:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for solving the mystery for us! It's always interesting to hear what happens as a result of our answers! SteveBaker (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

apology, and let's leave each other alone
Sorry about including your name, I thought it was rather neutral. I've amended my text to "I was working on" on "I got stuck" and removed the reference. Let's not get into altercations that benefit no one. Please don't follow me around or harass me. This is really harassment. Let's leave each other alone. Totallyabstract (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

if you write into unrelated questions to mischaracterize me, then i will contact you here to clear up the confusion.
hi,

steve here. i proposed leaving each other alone. If you write into unrelated questions to mischaracterize me, then of course I will contact you to clear up your confusion. You can just drop it. You are really, literally harassing me (following me around) and slandering me by purposefully mischaracterizing what I shared with you. (Or maybe you're just dumb).

The hairdrier question, which is not unrelated, is because I'm building a plane that LANDS, blows open a balloon (with a hairdrier), which rises and opens a large area of solar paneling. The whole thing is IMMOBILE, and not airborne. Please think through carefully, the next time you are saying "Steve says a design constraint is that the thing must be immmobile during the period that I say it is being blown off course - however, just to slander him, I will ignore this design constraint. No, I won't quote it, and say it's impossible or impractical to become immobile.  I will just drop this design constraint and then bitch about how he will get blwon off course". Steve, this attitude is intellectually dishonest: you cannot silently drop a design requirement that addresses your concern. Please either leave me alone, or never lie about my invention by dropping its requirements without a word.

Then again, I'm not even discussing my invention publicly, as it's patent-pending. You won't find it at the reference desk.

86.101.32.82 (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

out of curiosity, will you state for the record:
"No matter what you do, including tethering so you are immobile, which you proposed in your very first emal in any wind over a couple of mph, and with the most optimistic assumptions, for any conceivable balloon/parachute size, solar power coverage, battery pack capacity and engine efficiency - the balloon/parachute/whatever will get blown further off-course vastly faster than the plane can make up with whatever charge can be stored."

Or did you mean to destroy a strawman that has nothing to do with what I wrote you? In a question that has nothing to do with the subject? This is just malevolent. 86.101.32.82 (talk) 07:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

My Response

 * 1) I am not "following you around".  That's called "WikiStalking" or "WikiHounding" and we have clear rules about that (See WP:WIKIHOUNDING) which I'm clearly not coming close to infringing).  You come to my talk page of your own volition - and we're both active on the science ref desk.  Nil Einnes and I are friends - we have chatted a bazillion times over the years and I monitor that talk page.  I didn't follow you there.  You are required to assume good faith here at Wikipedia - and I don't think you're doing that.
 * 2) You have evidently created two separate named accounts here - that's not allowed, WP:SOCK covers the rules about that.
 * 3) I have explained to you in email why "tethering" is a non-starter, but as usual, you don't like to hear people tell you that something you thought up is utterly impractical.
 * 4) Sure, I could go on to explain why this or that new wrinkle that you've come up with won't work...but that's not the problem here.  You need to stop "inventing" things (none of them stand a snowballs chance in hell of working anyway) - and start by learning how to invent.  You need some basic science, basic math and (more than anything else) some serious critical-thinking skills.

I'm not talking college-level stuff - just the ability to look up how much energy a solar panel of such-and-such size produces (Google manufacturers of solar panels), how much battery power a battery pack for a model plane can hold (Google model plane forums), how much weight a balloon can lift at a given size (Wikipedia) - that kind of thing. Instead of having what seems to you as a good idea, then assuming it'll work - you have to start off by honestly trying as hard as you possibly can to find ways in which it won't work. Don't mentally imagine that "tethering" solves this and that problem. Stop and think: What are all the ways I can possibly imagine in which this might go wrong? How might it get entangled? Where might the tether land? What property might it land on? How heavy does the gizmo at the end need to be to avoid being blown away in the wind? What's the breaking strain of fishing line? What's the force on the balloon? Will the winch that pulls the line back in get tangled up? How will the hook or other gizmo on the end get stored inside the plane without causing a lot of air-resistance in flight? How much power does the motor need to lower and raise the tether cable? How big does that motor have to be? How much battery power does it need? That's the job that real inventors have to do. They don't ask other people to do that until they've already pushed their own critical thinking as far as it can go without finding a single serious problem.

Coming up with idea is the easy part - I can come up with a dozen ideas for inventions like yours before breakfast - the work of inventing isn't doing that...the work is in trying as hard as you can to figure out ways in which they don't work - then tossing out the obviously bad ideas without wasting more time on them. You should be at the point where the "obviously bad" lights are going off in your head - so you're dropping this idea and working on the next one. Ideas are easy - critical thinking about them is the 'real' part of inventing...and you can't just farm that part of the process out to the Science ref desk and random people who'll discuss it with you in email.

I'm sorry if you don't like that - but that's how it is.

I advise you to stop posting here - and to limit your time on the science reference desk to verifying ideas that you've already spent at least a week or two doing the "critical evaluation" thing on. Two Wikipedia administrators have already, independently, approached me to ask if I'd like you to be blocked from editing in those places on grounds of trolling and sock-puppetry. So far, I've said "No" because I think you're well-meaning. Don't make me change my mind.

Just my $0.02. I strongly recommend that you do not reply to this.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Steve, I appreciate your taking the time to respond and your current attitude. On reflection, let's say that we are looking at very, very different stages of this - or any other - project and you simply cannot help me (on this, or any tohre project) without far more work from me, which I am unable to provide at present.  Is that fair and neutral?
 * In this case please allow me to ask follow-up questions that concern entirely different solutions, so I can learn - from references - some of what is possible. This lets me limn the space of possible references so I can crunch the data later and do a lot more calculation if appropriate.  However, I would NOT like to just explore the space of possible solutions without any grounding or references whatsoever.  So if you see a question on the general basic references or calculations I would need, please allow others to answer it for my sake or anyone else's.  I've just asked one such question.  178.48.114.143 (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Composite image
Hi! Would you care to share your opinion about the composite/single infobox image issue here? I would really appreciate it. Thanks! --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Free energy suppression
Hey, I know you are generally active in this topic area: Free energy suppression. Can you have a look over the recent edits? Someone made a lot of edits recently. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Reference Desk
I know how much you enjoy arguments on the ref-desk's talk page!

Even so, I'll link this one since you're mentioned. Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk

APL (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah - that's no fun. I'm not an avid reader of the Ref Desk talk page...but I've stated my position there - thanks for the heads-up. SteveBaker (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hah. Miracle of miracles, I actually found one. What do I win? (Of course, it's in response to a joke question, but there you go.)
 * While looking for this I found...
 * a spot where he's trying to pick a fight about religion (Also notice in that thread his factually incorrect answer about the prophet Mohamed. He says it again here )
 * A spot where he was trying to pick a fight about politics.
 * Then there's this gem where he appears to be arguing (in his usual scatter-shot logic.) that if a victim becomes aroused during a rape then it's not really a rape.
 * APL (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah - well, I can kinda condone that kind of thing (although it's not our best work!) - but when he criticises me for a strictly factual, evidence-based answer - couched with suitable levels of uncertainty...we have to be concerned about what color the pot calls the kettle. SteveBaker (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In all seriousness, I think he just enjoys playing enforcer.
 * He'd be an asset if he was also capable of rationally and calmly discussing the rules he's enforcing, instead of just going by whatever headcanon he's developed on his own. Look how flabbergasted he got that we couldn't understand that you broke his own personal definition of "medical advice". He just kept repeating it over and over as if we were idiots for not following the rule he'd completely made up.
 * I think he still hasn't realized that there's a disconnect there. He's going to be a loose cannon until he does. APL (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What an amusing train-wreck of a thread that is... some people (quite a few on our humble desk) just can't help being living embodiments of the Dunning–Kruger effect... thanks for your participation in the Ref Desk, again! --Mr.98 (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Turkey tail it is!
Dear Steve, that was some swift reply you provided to my Ref Desk query just now! I credited you in my update post on Pinterest to the gal who'd pinned the photo - who happens to be the lauded and talented Jane Thornley of Nova Scotia, imaginative designer of handknits and one who, like me, finds fabulous and sometimes surprising inspiration in Nature. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You might like to know how I did it. I found the URL of the photo you linked to - then submitted that to the Google Image search.  That brought up several pages that talked about the "Turkey Tail" fungus, and loads more photos that have similar coloration to yours...so the color is obviously "real".  I then typed "Turkey tail fungus" into the regular Google search - and that turned up the latin name - and typing THAT into Wikipedia brought up our article - which has photos that look more or less like the one you posted.


 * Easy!
 * SteveBaker (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is unfamiliar and helpful to me - as I'm new on Pinterest and just starting to look at lots of images sourced around the interwebs. Working in a historical archives for my livelihood, I'm quite square about information and attribution, so anything that boosts my skills is used for, ya know, truth and justice. Many thanks for explaining this technique, and I'm looking forward to trying it soon and often! -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah - go to google.com, click on the "IMAGES" tab at the top - you'll see a camera icon inside the search box. Click that, then do a copy/paste of the URL of the image - or upload a picture from your own computer - and it'll find other images that look like it with similar colors and shapes.  It's kinda magical!  Another service that does the same kind of thing is called "TinEye" http://www.tineye.com/ - sometimes it finds things that Google doesn't.  Once you've found similar images, you can read the websites that they came from - and generally you'll find what you need.  Also, if you find an image in Google Images, there is a button there "Find similar" - that will sometimes turn up other photos of the same kind of thing. SteveBaker (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Clean up Viktor Schauberger article
In 2011 you said that you were about to aggressively clean up the article on Viktor Schauberger. The article is still a mess, with lots of wild and unsupported claims. Additionally, the few sources that are given are mostly pseudo-scientific and/or conspiracy theory literature. If you have the time, please go through with the promised clean-up. Thanks — Daniel Dunér (talk)" —Preceding undated comment added 10:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you couldn't do this for yourself - but OK. I've gone in and deleted all of the uncited claims and added a note to the talk page telling people not to put any of it back without solid references.  Happy? SteveBaker (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry to have bothered you. I'm new to Wikipedia editing and didn't want to step on anyone's toes. Daniel Dunér (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

universe
I'm not looking for evidence. Obviously such evidence cannot be found. :) i'm looking for links to theories that proposing time-continuum or universe to be infinite and external. Ryanspir (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Without evidence (and evidence definitely cannot exist), any such theories (strictly "hypotheses") would be people just guessing. The reason we don't know the answers already is because we cannot know the answer.  The last bastion of "infinite time" was the Steady state theory - which was comprehensively busted in 1965 with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR).  CMBR essentially proves the Big Bang theory - and no serious cosmologists disbelieve it.  So all you can ask is "What happened before the Big Bang" - which is a question that absolutely cannot ever be answered because a singularity is effectively a black hole and if there ever was a "before" then we'll never get any information from it.  A similar problem exists with the size of the universe.  Absolutely no information of any kind can come from a distance more than 45 billion light years away - so we can't tell what is going on beyond that point.


 * So it's not just that we don't have good theories - it's that we never can have good theories. Because of that, there simply aren't good hypotheses proposing any answers either way.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I miss the logic here. We know that energy cannot appear or disappear, it can only change states. Right?
 * So how we can assume that before Big Bang there was nothing? Or to be even unsure? How the singularity came into existence? I think if we agree that energy cannot appear or disappear, we automatically agree that something was there prior to singularity. What do you think about what I'm saying? Ryanspir (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Excuse me for intruding on somebody else's talk page, but part of the issue is that the singularity is not merely a singularity in space, it is a singularity in spacetime. For practical purposes, time itself began (for all we know) at the singularity. Looie496 (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You are certainly welcome to the discussion. However, what point of reference would that be? From inside the singularity - you might be right. But how about if the point of reference is outside the singularity? We cannot observe the object and judge it being inside it. We have to take a look at it from the outside, even if we physically cannot do that, at least we can use our imagination, and assume what would we see if we would be outside. Ryanspir (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no point outside the singularity. At the singularity (if there is such a thing), all space is reduced to a single point.  Of course it is possible to imagine any sort of impossibility you feel like, but the fact that you can imagine it doesn't make it meaningful. Looie496 (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Human imagination and common sense certainly fail in such extreme situations...it's only to be expected. You have to rely on the mathematics.  SteveBaker (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is that this is a singularity. It has literally zero size and (depending on whether the universe is infinite or not) either finite or infinite mass/energy.  Either way, there is infinite gravitation, infinite density...all manner of important quantum principles are by necessity broken...the laws of physics and mathematics simply break down.  This is much the way they do inside a black hole.  Most importantly (just like a black hole), information cannot pass through the singularity.  You cannot deduce anything whatever about anything "before" to it.  You certainly can't invoke conservation laws.  If conservation laws held in such bizarre circumstances then you'd have "proof" of a universe that's infinite in time because that's the only way that the energy couldn't appear or disappear.  However, if (as Looie suggests) time is also created at the instant of the big bang (which I think aligns with most modern thinking) then the energy didn't appear from nowhere because even the word "appear" implies that at some instant in time there was no energy - and at some moment just after that there was.  But if there is no time...if time just starts to exist at the moment of the big bang - then nothing appeared from nowhere - the energy was there at the literal start of time.  So in that sense, conservation laws are not an issue.  The same thing applies to all of the broken laws of physics...they are only "broken" at the precise T=0 instant because in the smallest amount of time after that, it's started to expand and space and time are non-zero and the singularity is no longer a singularity. SteveBaker (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, hehe, nice theory. So, I guess I can only ask two questions: 1) What natural phenomenon worked at creation of that singularity? 2) If we assume the Big Crunch theory, it means that the Big Bang is essentially repeating itself eternally. Thus it after Big Bang the Universe expands, then it collapses into singularity, brews and then another Big Bang. In that case, if we look at the point before singularity and after singularity, the energy would be the same, and the conservation law would still be in effect.
 * Also I missed my classes about Singularity, is it of infinite density/gravitation/mass/energy or close to infinite? Per the theory. Ryanspir (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Didn't you read *anything* I wrote? Either time started with the singularity - so there was no "before" and therefore no "creation"...or no information can possibly pass through the singularity, so we can never know what came before...and therefore never know what (if anything) created it.
 * The "big crunch" theory is not currently believed to be true. There isn't enough mass in the universe to pull it all back together - and measurements of the expansion rate show that the rate of expansion is actually increasing.  But if "big crunch" were true, then we'd still never know whether the universe would then go "bang" again - because the big crunch would end with a singularity - and no information from before it could possibly pass through into the next universe.  There is absolutely no reason to assume that the big crunch would cause another big bang...and because of (1), we'll never know.
 * I already explained that the singularity was a point of infinite density - because it had zero size. Any amount of mass crunched into zero size has infinite density.   The singularity at the center of a black hole has infinite density - but only has the mass of the star that collapsed to form it.  Whether the big bang's singularity had infinite mass or not is unknown because we don't know whether the universe that followed from it is infinite or not.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I carefully read everything you have written. But you tend to overly adhere to currently accepted mainstream view and seem to defending it. However, if our discussion will go in that way, it will be purposeless, instead, lets try to discuss alternative ideas.
 * Another thing I would like to point out, it's not important for us to know what was before Singularity (assuming there was something). What we want is simply to assume that Singularity came into existence and not the beginning of the existence by itself.

Ryanspir (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This "mainstream view" is the product of the best science we have - the latest data from hugely expensive spacecraft, analysed by the best cosmologists on the planet. It's really irrelevant what you "want to assume".  If you assume something that's not reasonably certain to be true - then whatever conclusions you come to as a result are built on shakey foundations and therefore have no value.  You absolutely cannot know - or even be in the slightest bit certain whether the singularity:
 * Came into existence.
 * Had always been there.
 * Was the beginning of time - thereby making "before" a meaningless concept.
 * If you're constructing your "proof of God" from a shakey assumption about something we can't possibly know - then you don't have a "proof" - you have some wild speculation that's no better than not knowing.
 * As I pointed out to you several times on the ref desk, your argument is full of holes even if the universe is eternal and infinite.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up on wikis for marketing research data management question on RD:Misc
First, thank you for taking the time to write me such a comprehensive reply. You delineated all of the reasons I had abstractly felt, and added a few more than I hadn't thought of (track worker activity, legacy systems support). Right now I'm assessing using either MediaWiki or TikiWiki. I'm leaning towards TW due to its multilingual support approach and its even-more-granular user access and permissions controls. Of lesser importance is my impression that TW is geared more towards corporate applications in its development mentality. Do you have any opinions for or against TikiWiki? The Masked Booby (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I used TikiWiki at a job a long, long time ago - and I hated it...I don't even recall why...maybe it's improved since then. However, the stunningly important benefit that MediaWiki has over all of the others is that it's used for Wikipedia - so you *KNOW* for 100% certain that the project will continue, be stable and reliable for at least as long as Wikipedia is the repository of all of mankind's knowledge.  What happens if your company relies upon TW and over the next few years, all of the developers lose interest - or there is some kind of internal bust up an the project gets forked?  That won't happen to MediaWiki because it's just so important.  I also dislike the monolithic nature of TW, it's a million lines of code in one gigantic package.  MediaWiki is about half the size and has something like 1,800 extensions - which makes it much more manageable...and extensible.  SteveBaker (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your insight, Steve! The Masked Booby (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Threat to "call the admins"
Steve,

Regarding your stupid post on Sience Ref Desk under question about perception of moon or sun 's disk percived size.

You have threatened to call the Admin folk.

It's not an impossible question - asking people to compare the moon's disk size against trees or buildings a kilometre or two away is not the slightest conceptually different to asking them to compare it to a coin or golfball about a metre away - only the scale changes. People know how big a golf ball is, and they know how big buildings are in their area.

Now, go call the admins. You have revealed yourself as a petulant schoolboy who cannot stand being caught out bullshitting, and needs to call Mummy. A more mature person, and a person more certain of his facts, would come back with a response that stands on its own merits. I could easily pick holes in some of your posts on other questions with technical answers but chose not to.

For example, your post on the question about tolerancing in technical drawings: You go on about toleranced drawings being made obosolete by the development of direct CAD input to machining. You claimed to do this sort of work "all the time" in the 1st para. Well, that is non-provable. I wouldn't know what you do. But I am an engineer, and I certainly do this sort of thing all the time. While these developments are coming, most work still gets documented in conventional toleranced 2D technical drawings, for these two reasons:-
 * A heck of a lot of work isn't suitable for automatic machining. E.g.,  things that are made by sand casting; things that are made by hand held arc or gas welding.  Simple stuff in low quantities or one-offs that are quicker to do by hand operated machine tools, etc etc
 * Work that is covered by invitation to tender and tender response must still, for business and legal reasons, be specified by paper drawings and signoffs - and that means tolerancing, even if it is "good practice" norms.

Paper toleranced drawings will most likely become obsolete, helped by new 3D printing technologies and other things not yet imagined, and the legal profession coming to grips with the digital age. But they are not obsolete now, and not likely to be obsolete for some considerable time.

(insult redacted) He's a pretty smart chap with excellent general and science knowledge - but he writes a lot of crap because he writes off-the-cuff and doesn't check facts first. But even he has never stooped to your petulant threat - and he's been critised more agressively by other Wikipedians that I've ever criticised your posts.

Now, go call the Admins. You obviously can't take any critique. You obviously want to be top dog. I don't really care what you squawk, because I occaisonally get notes of appreciation from folk who posted questions - a rare thing with Ref Desk generally.

Wickwack 60.228.250.110 (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Wickwack, whatever you might think about Steve, he doesn't go around insulting people. If you can't keep your temper better than this, you'll soon be banned from the Reference desks.  That would be unfortunate, because you often give useful information.  But this sort of thing just won't do. Looie496 (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Wickwack, you may need to step back and re-read that thread to realize that Steve never insulted you personally, never accused you of lying or manipulating others, never called you names like "petulant" or "schoolboy" - yet you are guilty of all of those and therefore in violation of Wikipedia policy. Take stock for a moment and realize you've gone too far. -- Scray (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

So, you ignored my warning to obey WP:AGF and did it again. Well, I don't make idle threats.

The key thing with Wikipedia interactions is that you're more than welcome to disagree on content - but you're not welcome to attack the person who posted it. You particularly can't make wild assumptions about their motives. I'm more than happy to discuss technical drawing standards and the future of rapid prototyping - or the area covered by the sun and moon. But when you start saying that I lied, or falsified evidence or otherwise behaved "in bad faith" (the Wikipedia phrase of choice) then you have crossed the bright line laid out very clearly in one of our founding principles: Assume Good Faith - you may believe that I'm wrong, but your assumption must be (and correctly, in this case) that I'm either mistaken or inaccurate or something of that nature. You may not assume that I'm deliberately lying, cheating or otherwise falsifying the evidence. You're just not allowed to do that and to continue to be an editor of this website.

You crossed that bright line - then when I reminded you that you're not allowed to do it - you went and did the exact same thing again.

You don't think there are consequences? You think you're somehow so popular that you're above the law here? Well, I don't think you are above the law (or that popular, for that matter) - and you're likely going to discover that very soon.

Look - I honestly don't give a damn what you personally feel - but you're not allowed to write about me that way. You wave claims that lots of people have thanked you for your work...fine...now go look at the huge pile of barnstars that I've been given for doing exactly the same thing. Having people thank you doesn't allow you to call people liars and falsifiers of information here on Wikipedia. That's a fundamental rule that drives all interactions here on this website.

Your behavior is unconscionable - and I won't stand for it. Since you've now insulted me again here on my very own talk page, even after I reminded you of the WP:AGF rule - I think it's time for me to find an admin to take appropropriate action. A suitably profuse and public apology may stay my hand or ameliorate the risk of you getting blocked. You just can't get away with this kind of nonsense and ill-behavior on a prominent public forum - so either you publicly apologize and guarantee that this behavior stops right here, right now - or you get to away for a while to cool your heels. Either way you have a stain on your reputation that goes deeper than any insults you might throw at me.

SteveBaker (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You'll get no apology from me. An appology is neither appropriate nor necessary.  I note your squawk on the Ref Desk talk page.  As is normal for Wikipedians, you've attracted views for and against your complaint.  Perhaps more poeple will post there, perhaps they won't.  You can be sure I don't feel particularly happy about being supported, nor do I feel particularly upset about you being supported.  I've been contributing on Wikipedia long enough, and watching posts I had nothing to do withn to know that views for and against will nearly always be presented.
 * I note that you read into things aspects that were not written, and have again done so. I suggest that in future you read posts more carefully before spitting your dummy.
 * I also note that you said above that there are logically two possibilities: a) you did not act in good faith in posting your Ref Desk answer, and b) you did post in good faith but you were mistaken, and (b) applies in this case - that is you have admitted being wrong. I appreciate that, but such admission belongs on the Ref Desk answer.  Such admissions when we are wrong add to the respect we get from everybody.  I don't feel the need for an apology from you, but an admission of technical error on your part on the Ref Desk would help the OP and everyone else.
 * Feel free to take it to the Admins immediately, or wait the 2 days you stipulated.
 * Wickwack 120.145.194.10 (talk) 03:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)