User talk:Sunrise/Archive 1

Just saying
I noticed your contributions to the scientific method. I am biased to like expansion or compelling rewrites of scientific articles, but even so, you do good work. Keep it up. The Wikipedia project is lucky you are volunteering your time. - Tesseract2 (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! I'm trying my best. Arc de Ciel (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Android version history
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Android version history. 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) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey
Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,

the wub (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tropical Storm Erick (2007)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tropical Storm Erick (2007). 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, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Made changes to "Scientific Theory" that you may appreciate
So I just removed the "images, analogies, and metaphors of theory" section of the "Scientific Theory" article. I actually wrote this entire section. (The nice Galileo Galilei quote was added subsequently to my initial writing, but the rest I wrote.)

I am a philosophy of science professor at a Tier-1 research university and am on good terms with most of the really big living philosophers of science. Of course I know that metaphor, informal reasoning, and pragmatics is looked down upon by many philosophers of science. You seem to be one of them, having removed significant chunks of the exegetical passages I added to the section. Don't worry: I'm used to it! Just thought I should tell you what I did. You clearly have more energy to edit wikipedia than I do (I'm trying to write articles, books, give conference lectures, etc.), and so I thought I'd just fill you in on what I did. Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingroras (talk • contribs) 01:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It was actually me who added the Galileo quote, although someone else had already written what was clearly a reference to it.


 * I didn’t have anything against your exegetical passages, but I edited them to bring them into agreement with Wikipedia's policies, such as no original research. While you're probably a reliable source yourself, you still have to limit yourself to statements that you have published and ensure that you follow the standards of notability. The main advantage of being in academia is the deep knowledge of the literature and the ability to cite it appropriately (which is, of course, very important!). The general recommendation, I believe, is to avoid citing yourself unless you do so very carefully.


 * There were a couple of other issues as well, e.g. you should usually avoid saying something like “Michael Polanyi made a powerful analogy...” (see WP:PEACOCK). More generally, it is editorializing: it inserts an opinion and is therefore non-neutral (see WP:NPOV). If you want to use a specific word of this kind, you should cite people who have used the word and attribute the use to them, although my own preference is to avoid even that.


 * With respect to your edit summary (“so many people have f***ed with this”), that is the point of Wikipedia – everything is edited over time. In general, I think that articles gradually tend towards improvement - although of course not every part of every edit is helpful, and I don’t pretend to be the best editor here. And I don’t actually have all that much free time either - I just tend to focus a lot of it on Wikipedia. :-) Good luck to you as well!  Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dahn yoga
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dahn yoga. 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) 08:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Plasma cosmology
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Plasma cosmology. 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) 09:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Evolution as fact and theory
Hi Arc de Ciel - thanks for your feedback. I three in a few quick comments, but do not have time today to go through very thoroughly on what you have written. Later this week I will spend more time going through to revise and work off your comments to improve the FAQ. Assistance is welcome and I like that you are giving constructive feedback.Thompsma (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome again - I think it's an important article, and I'm glad you find this helpful. :-) I replied to your comments and also included a version that I would have written in response to the question (but again, take as much time as you'd like - I'm busy as well!) Arc de Ciel (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the version you would have written, but found sentences that you suggested. I re-wrote a draft and it is on the talk pages. It is longer, but I think it is improved thanks to your input and patience. If you have any useful references to fact in mathematics, I would be interested in taking a look. I have read a few books of a general nature on the philosophy of science in relation to math, physics, chemistry, and biology, but I am generally interested in the philosophy of fact and thinking of writing a publication on the topic. Thanks.Thompsma (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI
I predicted this. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw it. You said I could watch your contribs, remember? :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As always, I appreciate your help, particularly with the tempest-in-a-teapot about wife-beating. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to beat my wife... Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (For anyone who needs context for that last comment, see the article loaded question. The canonical example is "Have you stopped beating your wife?") Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Monsanto
Hi If you look at the history of this article you'll notice that I did boatloads of editing in the past week or two. You can see how it looked if you look at the version before my first editing run. Prior editors had a very strong anti-Monsanto POV - the company is evil, all their goods are poison, they lie, they sue everybody, etc. It was also badly organized and so I restructured it and consolidated a lot of duplicated material. Bringing this article up to par as a good and nonPOV piece will require a lot more work - glad to see you in the piece with the same goal! But to answer the question in your last edit -- YES, the whole article article was very POV.

For instance, the section on glyphosphates was just silly. I was debating what to do with it.. glad you worked on it. I don't think the sentence about frog toxicity really belongs there - there is a whole article on various effects of glyphosphate and the one cited study might be interesting but it absurd to cite one study.

On the Terminator section that you recently modified - as far as I know, nobody has plans to commercialize. Monsanto owns most of the key intellectual property (because they invented it or bought companies that did) and they have pledged never to use it. It is not in use anywhere at this time.

Thanks again! I look forward to working with you to fix this. Jytdog (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Same to you, and thanks for the info. That definitely explains some things, and it looks like you've made a lot of progress already. :-) Look forward to working with you as well! Feel free to keep adjusting my edits.


 * By the way, did you see my comment on the talk page? For the Vanity Fair piece, I'm thinking I might want to ask about it at WP:RSN. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Arc de Ciel. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This is a courtesy heads-up for you. I'm adding everybody who worked on the article since I have.  Belch fire - TALK 02:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ecology
Do you have any interest in the topic of ecology? I wrote most of the ecology page, but haven't had the motivation to get it up to FA status. If you are interested and knowledgeable on the topic, we could work together and bring it up to standard.Thompsma (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'd love to! That being said, this would be the first time I've worked on a push to FA before, and my knowledge of ecology is just what I remember from undergrad. But nothing ventured, nothing gained... :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Great news!! It has been a long while since I worked on the article. When I first came on board it was like reading about ecology from a cereal box. I have worked on it for a number of years and wrote in most all the main text you see now. For some reason I spent all my day today going through the fine details and actually think I have finished going through all the previous FA review comments. If you could give the article a once over from top to bottom to see if you can reduce it down in size, or catch any errors - that would be fine. The content on ecology is probably comprehensive enough - so there is little need to add more knowledge content. However, another scientifically minded person would be a great asset. Once you give it a single run through - I think it should be ready to put back on the FA nomination list.Thompsma (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds great. Just to let you know that when I read I skim back and forth a lot, so my edits won't follow any particular order within the article. I'll let you know when I'm done (and of course, please ask for clarification or revert if I change something you think is important). Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and bye
Arc, I just want to thank you for supporting me and generally doing the right thing. See my talk page (and I guess here) for details, but I've decided that Wikipedia does not deserve my contributions. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to hear that. I hope that you decide to return; and even if not, I hope that when you're looking something up on Wikipedia and see some vandalism or an easily fixable problem, especially in a place where someone else might not look for some time, that you spend the 30 seconds to fix it. :-) Regardless of how good or bad Wikipedia might be, and whether or not your block was justified, this is still a place where a lot of the world gets their information - and as such we have the opportunity to help and educate others, and (I would say) a duty to improve it whenever possible. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to regret this, but I stuck around slightly longer. There are multiple parties overtly planning to get me banned, though, so give it time. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Just remember not to take anything personally, and that the more civil you are, the more likely your edits will be long-lasting. By the way, you've probably made your point about the "planning" statements by now; I think the post on your talk page is (more than) sufficient. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for the advice. Yes, I'll be cleaning off my page soon, but I think I'm going to leave the "plan" part intact, for posterity. To be frank, I'm not taking it personally because there seems to be a clear political basis for why certain editors continue to treat me so badly. I guess I should just accept it as a badge of honor or something; it means I'm doing my part in keeping articles neutral. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Life
Just a note to let you know how much I appreciate -and even enjoy- the improvements you did to the Life article. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Glad I could be of help. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Frog
I think Frog is considerably improved with your help and that of Thompsma and I intend to close the Peer Review tomorrow and have a go at FAC. Thank you for participating. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good luck! :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

AGF
In case, you didn't see this on StillStanding-247's talk page: if you want to post a friendly note on my talk page with some diffs of the other things you'd noticed, I'd really appreciate the feedback. StAnselm (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw it, I just wasn't on Wikipedia for a while. Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for your response. I might as well tell you that over the last few days I have, quite accidentally, found myself in a part of wikipedia that I haven't been to before. I smiled are your topic-ban suggestion - I'm Australian, by the way. StAnselm (talk) 09:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

bowman case
hi arc de ciel! saw your recent edits to the bowman case in monsanto. not sure how to say this, but we don't see the facts the same way here. "my" facts.... there was no horizontal gene transfer.. the deal is that bowman like many farmers tries to squeeze 2 plantings in a year. for the first planting, he bought transgenic seeds, planted them, harvested the crop, and sold them. done. all good! for the 2nd planting (riskier because who knows when winter will come) he got the bright idea of buying seed from the elevator that is sold cheaply as a commodity (in other words, to be used as is or further processed into an end product...NOT to be planted as seed) and he planted it as seed. he reckoned a bunch of it would be transgenic since he himself -- and others -- sold their crop to that elevator. he tested it and it indeed was. he told monsanto what he was doing, and he apparently believed (for some reason) that what he was doing was OK. two courts have said he was wrong. we will see if the supremes take it! but where do you get that there was horizontal gene transfer?Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that! I'm not familiar with the case, so I just assumed that was what had happened based on what was already written - the original didn't say anything about it being the same seed that he had sold. Please feel free to correct it. :-)


 * By the way, would you like to try and take the article to GA status? There would be a lot more work to do, but I think that what we've already done might just make it feasible. Arc de Ciel (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting! So far Monsanto-haters have not come rushing in as I had feared when I started working on this.. but I worry about that, and about meeting stability criteria should that happen.   I very much like the idea of getting that certification.   Let's keep working with that in mind!   I think we are indeed close.    btw on the Bowman thing.... he and many other farmers sold their harvest to the elevator, so the soybean he bought as a commodity may have included his own harvest (which would mean he was essentially replanting in violation of the contract that Monsanto has farmers sign) but that  would be impossible to verify....Jytdog (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I only checked the sources briefly, but it looks like they support the current language, so that should be enough. :-) It seems that Monsanto isn't claiming they were his own seeds anyways, so whether they were probably doesn't matter. I guess if they won on those grounds they might have to do the case again with someone who had bought from a different elevator than they'd sold to. Arc de Ciel (talk) 02:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on User talk:John Biancato
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:John Biancato. 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) 10:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:BP
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:BP. 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) 11:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Renaming
To anyone who's watching this page, apologies for the watchlist spam. :-) I made a request to usurp User:Arc en Ciel and redirect it to myself to prevent confusion, which was misread as a request to move my account to that name. There were then some further problems with the move back, but they seem to be fixed now. Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello (Salut)
Hi. I answer here to the message you have left on my talk page on the French wiki regarding. If the later has edited on WP (fr) he did not do it under his WP (en) handle. Furthermore, based on your message I have checked the history of the article fr:Inventions musulmanes du Moyen Âge but I was unable to define whether one of them could have been Jagged 85. Three editors have made massive edits, i.e. one of them under IP and two registered ones. But among the two registered editors I think that cannot be Jagged 85 as his edits could be defined as islmamophobics (he has be blocked a few time for this), which does not really fit with Jagged 85 kind of edits. And fot the two others I did not really find clear elements that could shown that one of them is jagged 85. So far I cannot exclude that some bona fide editors might have translated substantial parts of WP (en) articles that included some of the unsubstantiated or false information left by Jagged 85 in many English articles. Which would mean that the situation is even worse as we would then ahve no clear possibility to retrace this information in the French article. Anyway I will leave a message refering to your message and my answer on WP (fr) administrators noticeboard. Please feel free to add your comment (even in English) if you think necessary or useful. Best regards, --Lebob (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
My problem with the sweeping statement that Christian Science is a pseudoscience is twofold. (1) Obviously that's a pejorative term and while Christian Science does not itself claim to be a science (of the ilk of physics or chemistry) some latch onto that as has been pointed out. (2) More importantly there is no 'logical' defense to the argument. It is not possible, as you are aware, to prove or document a negative. That I can cite many sources that do _not_ say Christian Science is a pseudoscience doesn't count. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What you're looking for is a document which says explicitly that Christian Science is not a pseudoscience but also a source that is not advocative. Am I reading you correctly here? Digitalican (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * (1) It is not pejorative, any more than "science" is. Even if it were, it is still the way CS is described in reliable sources; and according to the sources, CS does claim to be science. (By the way, saying that CS does not claim to be science is also a sweeping statement - and the claim that something is "outside of" science is a favorite defense of pseudoscientists.) I would personally agree that some parts are philosophy/religion and thus not either science or pseudoscience, but you would need reliable sources that make this specific statement.


 * (2) The sources cited are some of the most reliable sources in existence about pseudoscience. You would need sources of the same caliber. For myself, I doubt that such sources exist, because if there were debate among the relevant experts, it would be in the sources we already have. Of course, I am willing to be proven wrong.


 * A couple of other things: absence of evidence actually is evidence of absence, just weaker than direct evidence. However, a) among the sources that are most important, the issue is not absent and b) drawing a conclusion from the absence of a mention would be original research anyways (you would need a source that made the explicit argument). Also, it's completely permissible to change the grammar of a quote to preserve the grammar of a sentence, as long as square brackets are used. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tom Van Flandern
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tom Van Flandern. 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) 11:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

proposal to split GM controversies article
Hi arc

there is a proposal to split the controversies article on its talk page. would be interested in your thoughts if you have time!Jytdog (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll take a look. Arc de Ciel (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Semitransgenic talk. 13:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

thanks for your kind note. you read me perfectly

 * ) Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your well reasoned assistance in the alternative medicine article
Thanks for your well reasoned assistance in the alternative medicine article putting air tight sources in the first lead paragraph. Now let's see if we can keep the content and sources from being slowly removed. Thanks again. :) ParkSehJik (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:Citekill
I generally get very irritated by massive numbers of footnotes at the end of some Wiki sentences, so I generally agree with the essay, WP:Citekill. "Citation clutter" certainly describes the current reference list at the end of the second lede sentence. However, in the alternative medicine article, I have watched over the years as it fluctuated from appearing not so far from an article one would expect in any other encyclopedia, to being watered down to the point of having as no more content than a homeopathic remedy has non-water molecules. Sources disappeared bit by bit, or got moved so far down into the body as to be unfindable, and wording was made vague as part of Wikipedia's "consensus" standards for inclusion, the very essence of many of Sampson's articles on the topic of "truth by consensus" and cultural relativism (which I think describes the Cochrane collectives almost Marxist definition of what should be objective medical science. I think the alt med article might be where an exception to WP:Citekill's "readability" criteria might have to be subsumed by a shield over over-verifiability. Editors currently paying attention will gradually wander off into their own lives, and the homeopathic dilution of the article might begin anew. I would even go so far as to add the exact quotes from the references into the reference section citation, to shield them from being knocked off one at a time over the months and years. ParkSehJik (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

PS, your own language style makes the lede first paragraph very "readable", the core standard WP:Citekill seeks to attain. ParkSehJik (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliments. :-) You might notice that the high-quality controversial articles, like evolution and global warming, are able to avoid this issue, and keep mainly the strongest references. That being said, they are also watched at a higher level. One possibility is to merge citations into fewer references, which (for example) I did here. Incidentally, I did use direct quotes in that case - there is definitely an argument for using them, especially when objections are common (and to help future people checking the reference), but I think they imply that the rest of the source is not of interest to the statement being cited, which is a disadvantage. Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is another compliment, which I have created a shortcut for called WP:CITEMERGE. One problem WP:CITEMERGE is that if only a single one of the merged sources needs to be cited again later in the article, it requires listing the source twice, which does not produce clutter in the body, but makes it difficult to use the feature of going from the footnote to each of the various places that a single source is used in the article by clicking the up arrows next to the footnote.
 * I agree that failing to put direct quotes encourages reading the whole article (it does for me). But this article is not a normal article, and only time will tell if quotes will still need to be in each footnote. . ParkSehJik (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

My reply to your question
Hi Arc, I was not sure if you would catch my response to your questions at the CAM talk page? Things move faster than anyone can follow, so in case you didn't catch my response, see here. Regards, Puhlaa (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have tried to address your comments regarding the NCCAM definition, as well as your concerns about accusations of bad faith and my comments about 'skepticism'. If you still have concerns I will gladly discuss those further. Otherwise I guess any further discussion can continue at the 'bottom' of the talk page? Kind wishes Puhlaa (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No concerns, I just wanted to clarify. I left my responses under yours to make it clear what I'm responding to, but if we could figure out a way to move everything down I agree that it would be much easier to follow the discussion. Arc de Ciel (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Greetings Arc, thanks for your continued patience and courtesy with regard to my repetitive challenges of the first sentence in the lead at AM. I have taken some time to read through our original discussions at the AM talk page. I have now responded to your comments on my talk page . Please note that I have included discussion of what I heard from you in response to my concerns in our original discussions, I would appreciate your correction wherever I have misunderstood you and any comments regarding my responses. I will not push any further at AM until you and I have a resolution at my talk page and there is no rush at wikipedia so I can patiently await your response with no difficulty. Best Regards Puhlaa (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Arc, I feel like you did not address my specific points per WP:UNDUE. I have responded to your newest comments with an indent at each area of disagreement, I hope you will respond again. I will definitely consider your responses, as I am still very much struggling to see your perspective on this issue. I am still interested to know if my perspective is flawed, but I have not found your arguements compelling because they do not adress my specific policy-based challenges of the current lead and do not use RS to support your 'thoughts'. Perhaps neither of us can be 'convinced' of the others perspective? If this becomes the case, would you be willing to let an independent editor give a new perspective, per WP:3O? Of course, this would not translate to a consensus at the Alt Med article, only between us at my talk page (lets keep it there for now if we do this). I am open to who we would use for a third opinion, as long as they are uninvolved so far. I did hear that you might prefer to move the discussion to the AM talk page? Is this your preference or just a possible suggestion? Puhlaa (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Multiple editors are/were involved in the discussion about the sentence, so 3O wouldn't be appropriate. (Remember that I'm not even the one who proposed the change.) Also, having the discussion on a talk page where everyone can be involved is a requirement of courtesy. :-)

I did look over your responses briefly, and I guess I wasn't specific enough - but it also seems like you're again missing a lot of the stuff that I've already said. If I were to respond, a lot of it (not all, of course) would involve repeating things I had already said in different words. But to be honest, if you or anyone made the change I probably wouldn't revert you - I've tried to communicate that my preference for the current lead is not all that strong (especially since you pointed out that the NYAS source isn't a direct statement of the organization). But again, I don't really have the time. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Goldhaber & Nieto
You are welcome to email me for more on Goldhaber & Nieto "Photon and Graviton mass limits", ''Rev. Mod. Phys.'', Jan-Mar 2010, 82(1) 939-941. That is, if you do not have independent access to the article. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 00:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi! I do have access, thanks. :-) I was actually thinking of pointing out that same citation for the editor who opened the discussion, but I decided to make a general statement instead. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Alt med
I am noticing you because you are one of the "new" editor's reverts in the list below. (I didn't look much beyond that.) The editor of these warring edits claims he is "new" in one breath, but using sophisticated citations of niceties of MEDRS in the other. He is arguing to remove NSF as not a good source, as well as removing NYAS, Academic Medicine, etc, and claims a syllogism "wrong" reasoning as part of his basis for the edits below, while in another breath makes sophisticated inferential reasoning -


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_medicine&diff=530989645&oldid=530376342
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_medicine&diff=531705263&oldid=531693371
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_medicine&diff=532237126&oldid=531848398
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_medicine&diff=532358556&oldid=532268119
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_medicine&diff=532724722&oldid=532449632 24.130.156.204 (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Original research
Thank you for your message re. my changes to "Scientific Theory." Why are Hempel's, Hacking's etc. comments not "original" research? Seems to me you simply don't want the quotes on metaphors and analogies in that article. So be it. Just call a spade a spade. (Positivism dies hard.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingroras (talk • contribs) 19:25, 8 January 2013‎
 * I don't feel strongly either way, actually. IRWolfie-'s reasoning is that none of the sources specifically describe metaphors and analogies as an independent concept relating to scientific theories. In other words, he's asking you to provide a source (preferably a well-cited one, to justify a section in a top-level article) something like "The role of metaphors and analogies in describing scientific theories" which uses these quotes. (If no such source exists, that's where the original research comes in.) I wouldn't call it a high priority to change this myself, though. Arc de Ciel (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Your edit is being discussed
Your collapse of citations is being discussed here, (under a strange new claim that now there are not enough citations to justify the lede, and that NSF is not a reliable source?!?) 24.130.156.204 (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * (Responding to both sections above.) Thanks for the note, but I'm not sure there's anything I can do right now. There are definitely edits being made that I would have reverted (at least pending discussion), but they're getting reverted so quickly already and I'm only checking Wikipedia infrequently. I already spent a lot of time on the last discussion, and it doesn't seem productive to me to be reopening the same issues so soon.


 * Also, I really recommend that you get an account - ideally it wouldn't make a difference, but your opinions will be given more weight that way. Arc de Ciel (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Come discuss
Rather than blanket reverting when I already discussed the edits under BRD come discuss the issues. DVMt (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC).


 * You've now re-inserted disputed content five separate times in the last ~5 hours. As I said on the talk page, BRD means that you wait until discussion is finished. Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Each revision has been modified by the discussion we are having at talk. No one has specifically mentioned what they are disputing despite my repeated requests to do so.  Your comment does not include this important contextual distinction.   Come to the article to discuss further like I mentioned before.  Otherwise I'll take it you really don't want to discuss but simply revert.  Also, you fail to make any suggestions for the content that disputed content (which no one has yet specifically done).  I would hope that you're willing to engage in a friendly exchange of ideas.  Best, DVMt (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been following the talk discussion since it began. Three of the edits I linked were reverts, and you've now added a fourth . Nobody took you to EWN, but you would have gotten a block; see WP:3RR, which is a bright-line rule. I may comment later, but I don't see anything to add at the moment, and it's not my responsibility to make suggestions; it is the responsibility of the editor who wants to change the current article. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

GA time for Monsanto article?
I have never nominated an article for GA status, but I think the Monsanto article might be there. What do you think? Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi! My opinion is that it's not there yet, and that getting it there would involve a lot of reverting and arguments on the talk page, which to me is one of the less enjoyable aspects of Wikipedia. :-) That said, of course you can feel free to nominate it, and even if it fails it would give editors a direction to work towards. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Speed Records (record label)
You're correct that there was a typo. I've now fixed that. Intentional links to the disambiguation page should be linked through the (disambiguation) redirect per WP:INTDABLINK. This lets the users at WP:DPL know that the link is intentional. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 10:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see now. Thanks! Arc de Ciel (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

i need u
hi i wanna chat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.131.106 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 2 July 2013‎ (UTC)


 * Hi. How can I help you? Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Betz' law
I got a message  and in that context I am responding. I did notice a bug in the BETZ's formula under Betz' law and coefficient of performanceSubstituting this value results in: The coefficient mentioned is Cp= 16/27. In reality it should have been Cp= (1- (1/27)) = 26/27. This correction will change lot of conclusions made and other statements made the after. I wish this were brought to the attention of original developer. --M S DIVEKAR (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi! :-) Thanks for your message and your contributions to the encyclopedia. I undid your edit because you had removed a bunch of text from the article (the heading, formatting, proof, and followup analysis), and because you're actually incorrect, at least according to the sources: for example, this source page 27, and this source page 389 both give the Betz coefficient's value to be 16/27.


 * The section has had several editors since 2008, when it was first added to the article; I tracked down the name of the very first editor from the page history, but he/she unfortunately only edited Wikipedia that one time. For myself, although I'm a bit familiar with Betz' law, I'm not a physicist, so I'm probably not the best person to give you a complete explanation. The best procedure when you have a question is usually to post a message on the article's talk page, but since it doesn't seem very active it might be easier to ask at WikiProject Physics. I can help you with this if you would like (and please feel free to ask me any other questions as well!)


 * (PS: as another tip, when you make an edit it is usually a good idea to add an edit summary describing your changes.) Arc de Ciel (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I did go thrugh the article written by a Croatian University. Link is given here http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/16242/InTech-Wind_turbines_theory_the_betz_equation_and_optimal_rotor_tip_speed_ratio.pdf There are many mathematical mistakes. Do not beleive every formula writetn there- take a pencil and paper and checkout for yourself and you will find simple mistakes. Take for instance on page 25 equation 21. for computation of coefficient of performance, Cp = (1/2)*(1-((1/3)^2)(1+(1/3))= (26/27)*(2/3) is NOT 16/27. As though teh authors have forced tehmselves to agree with BETZ's law. This is also WRONG. Now look at page 26 of same article where from equation 23 and 24 anotehr derivation has been made power extarcted is P ideal = (8/9)*(1/2)*ρ*S1*(V1^3). THIS IS CORRECT. The teh author seems to be confused- as stated by himself - as to how area can be smaller of upwind and introduces a factor S=(3/2)*S1 - without any scientific logic and then we areback to accepting BETZ's law Cp= 16/27.

This is not scientific approach. Hence Pideal where Cp= 8/9 is correct and not cp = 16/27. Let the scientists accpet this and review all windmill designs to achieve this as target efficiency to be acheived. M S DIVEKAR (talk) 05:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello! Thanks for your response. I calculated it myself (both by hand and by calculator), and I got 16/27.
 * $$ \frac{1}{2} \cdot (1-(\frac{1}{3})^2) (1+\frac{1}{3}) = \frac{1}{2} \cdot (1-\frac{1}{9}) \cdot (1+\frac{1}{3}) $$     taking (1/3)^2 = 1/9
 * $$ = \frac{1}{2} \cdot \frac{8}{9} \cdot (1+\frac{1}{3}) $$     subtracting 1 - 1/9 = 8/9
 * $$ = \frac{4}{9} \cdot (1+\frac{1}{3}) $$     multiplying the left two terms, 1/2 * 8/9 = 4/9
 * $$ = \frac{4}{9} \cdot \frac{4}{3} $$     adding the right-hand term, 1 + 1/3 = 4/3
 * $$ = \frac{16}{27} $$     doing the final multiplication, 4/9 * 4/3 = 16/27


 * Does that help? Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * PS. The template you tried to use is actually written as, not  . You can tell that the current version doesn't do anything because it's red. The template adds the current page to a list which is watched by some of Wikipedia's editors - when they see the page appear on that list, one of them comes to visit and answer your questions. Usually this is placed on your own user talk page, but if you still want to use it, we can keep the discussion here as well. Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)