User talk:Tom Mandel

So let me explain how this works: ArbCom decreed that you can't edit science-related articles. You can create as many accounts as you like, but the Admins can track them, and the punishment for evading ArbCom bans by making sockpuppets is for the accounts to be blocked. Michaelbusch 00:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I used Fixaller long before the decision and informed Addhoc of my intentions all along. Using my real name cannot be a sock puppet.

I appeal the ArbCOm decision for lack of any evidence which would justify their decision. Indeed, Addhoc himself reported that any infractions I may have made were "trivial."

I have not edited crop circles or plasma cosmology under any user name since the decision. There is no justification to ban me from editing science articles, indeed I am what you would call an "expert" in the systems theory field.

Incidently, I notice that all references to scientific testing was removed from the crop circle article, and somewhere you state, "For the lack of evidence scientists believe the crop circles were all man made."

I was banned because my reply to that today would be "That is a lie."

During the ArbCom process, I stated that the Phythagorean Theorem IN ITS GENERAL FORM" cannot be proved. Turns out that among the 75 proofs, all of which are in specific form, one proof is in the general form. As a result it was suggested by one of the admins that I be banned from all science. For what? Being wrong? Once? And it ia a rather dubious wrong at that.

This is why real scientists/educators do not use Wikipedia as a reference.

As Jimbo stated himself, Wikipedia is populated by grad students and enthusiasts. well...

Tom Mandel 00:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

blocked
Blocked: 24 hours for violating your topic ban imposed at Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience by editing Systems theory. You may appeal the arbitration committee's decision if you wish, but you may not violate your ban in the mean time. There have also been complaints about your behavior on Talk:Systems theory. While the topic ban does not state that you are restricted from talk pages, talk pages do fall under the scope of your probation, and you may be banned from talk pages that you edit disruptively. Thatcher131 01:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I intend to appeal the ArbCom decision. I wish you would process that for me.

I feel that I have been wrongly treated and unfairly judged.

In the Crop Circle article, I worked to include scientific investigations, including a world renown soil expert and a world renown botony expert. Both of these ivestigators have found evidence that they cannot explain. Indeed, the true scientific consensus as reported by those scientists who have worked on the Circles is that "they do not know." Yet the article today has no reference to any scientific investigations, and the conclusion is that since there is no scientific evidence science regards crop circle as a hoax. This is simply not true, and said they (those who claim there is no scientific evidence)were lying.

In the Plasma Cosmology, the home editors are admitted big bang supporters. I have repeatedly tried to edit two points, one is that the redshift has been found to be quantized, which if proven to be the case, constitutes a falsification of the big bang theory. And the second point was that Hubble himself did not believe, up to his dying day, in expansion. This was called agressive editing?

The Arbitration was brought against Scienceapologist by other editors, not me, all I did is speak my piece as I believed it to be. At one time I made the comment that the Pythagorean Theorem in its general form is not testable. Someone said that it had been proven in the general form and therefore I should be banned from science article. I checked, and yes, there are over 75 different "specific" proofs, and, one proof in the general form. I was wrong. Is being wrong once justification for a forever ban?

I haven't been to the plasma cosmology article, but I would bet that no mention is made of quantized redshift or Hubble's opinion on expansion....

I started editing at Wikipedia in good faith, I believed that "Anyone may edit" But I soon found out that each article has a slant, and if one goes against this slant then, well I was insulted countless times by DarkFred at the crop circle talk pages, and when he deleted an entire archive which would have shown this, no one said anything. Eventually I had Addhoc monitor the talk and Dark Fred disappeared. The record is there, we were just starting to work together on this...

I was also treated rudely by the editors at Plasma cosmology, the big bang group, that is. They would take turns reverting my edits.

How is one supposed to deal with this kinf of behavoir? It is a mistake to assume that all editors are clean just because policy says that all editors should be clean. Editors should welcome new information, providing of course that it is sourced and reliable. A neutral article is an article that presents all sides of the story such that the reader is able to decide for himself. It is not an encyclopedia if it presents only one side.

There's lots of evidence that some crop circles were not man made and there is lots of evidence that the big bang theory does not account for,but that information apparently will not be found here.

Finally, systems theory is a transdisciplinary field, part of it includes the philosophy of systems, So...


 * To start with, I suggest you e-mail one or two of the new arbitrators who were elected since the Pseudoscience case was closed, and see if they are willing to consider an appeal. You might include FloNight, who was a clerk at the time and is now an arbitrator, who opposed the topical ban.  You should respectfully point out your concern that significant points of view are being excluded (if they are) and note that you are not contesting your probation (that is you are willing to be blocked from pages if an uninvolved admin finds you are disruptive on that page, but you wish the blanket preemptive ban to be overturned).  I think that is your best bet at this stage. Thatcher131 11:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * UninvitedCompany would be another good choice for a first contact, I think. Thatcher131 11:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I will look into that. How do I contact them? Meanwhile, you mentioned that a complaint was made concerning my conduct on the systems theory talk page.

According to the record I made the complaint. Here is my email to my advocate

Subject: Copy of your message to Addhoc: systems theory Date: 4/7/2007 10:16:18 A.M. Central Daylight Time From: tom@isss.org Reply To: To: tom@isss.org

Hello AddHoc

I have run into a problem with the Systems Theory article, specifically the graphic selection. Michaelbusch has repeatedly reverted/deleted the systemsgestalt.jpg graphic, citing blatant copyright violation, replacing it with his own. His graphic is menaingless to us, whereas our graphic is official and is in the public domain. Obviously Michaelbusch has no grasp of what systems do, apparently he is a grad student of planetary science and does not claim/demonstrate any expertise with systems theory.

I am attempting to involve recognized experts in the field of systems thinking, and collectively we have done a lot of revision. However Michaelbusch is challanging our edits on the basis of copyviolation or that the information is obvious. (?)

This is rather disconcerting, we have spent two weeks discussing the graphic and little else is getting done. And I have just received a refusal to help by an ISSSS member citing the edit wars in Wikipedia.

I requested and received verifiaton of the graphic, it is on the talk page. Also, while the graphic was deleted twice (from the commons)without proper procedure, it has since reappeared in the commons. However, to simply revert back to it is pointless as Michaelbusch will revert it back again.

We would like to develop this article but that won't happen if everything we do is challanged by others who do not have the expertise.

Can you help?

fixaller

I would like to add that in my opinion the sea gull mosaic is original reesearch, is not ilustrative of the process systems theory is about, and if taken as representative of systems theory is harmful akin to saying that systems theory is about sand castles. Am I wrong to believe that we should fight for the right? Who is being disruptive in a dispute, the one who is right or the one who is wrong?

Tom Mandel 17:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

supporting evidence
Some editors, (big bang supporters) claim that I have been disruptive. However, it appears that this disruption goes with the territory.

BIG BANG THEORY UNDER FIRE 1 William C. Mitchel

( As Published in Physics Essays Volume 10, Number 2, June 1997) In one of its several variations the big bang cosmological theory is almost universally accepted as the most reasonable theory for the origin and evolution of the universe. In fact, it is so well accepted that virtually every media article, story or program that touches on the subjects of astronomy or cosmology presents the big bang (BB) as a virtual proven fact. As a result, the great majority of the literate populace of the world, including most of the scientists of the world, accepts big bang theory (BBT) as scientific fact. Education establishments involved in the fields of astronomy, astrophysics, theoretical physics and cosmology are dominated by those who have accepted BB as the theory to be pursued. Scientists who seriously question the BB are generally considered disruptive, ridiculed and derogatorily referred to as big bang bashers.

As a result of that attitude alternate cosmological possibilities are left uninvestigated. Untold man-hours and vast sums of money are spent in pursuit of data in support of the prevailing theory. Such endeavors are not in keeping with the ideals of impartial scientific investigation. It is all but forgotten that the BB is not fact, but an unproven theory.

Being banned is not unheard of, Alton Arp, a student of Hubble, has been banned from using telescopes in the USA, because he has evidence that galaxies can have differing redshift even though they are at the same location.

The situation is like this - Hubble found that the observed redshift is an indicator of distance. This is a fact. However, astronomers took Hubble's equation and added "C" the velocity of light to the equation which has the effect of implying that redshift is also a measure of recessional velocity. This assumption forms the basis of the big bang event which is that if the Universe is expanding, running the expansion backwards means that at some time the Universe was small. However, this assumption has been falsified and thus Inflation was devised to explain the discrepancy. But Inflation is impossible according to our present day physics.

Point 1. Hubble himself did not believe that redshift meant expansion. He held this positon to his dying day "Hubble concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution showed a large departure from Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes was calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction is required if no motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature".

I attempted to include this valuable information in the article but it was repeatedly deleted because it was "irrelavant"

Point two.

Quantized redshift. It has been observed and confirmed that certain galaxies show a quantized or periodicity. This would not be detected if the galaxy were moving away from us - the lines would be blurred. If this turns out to be accurate, then it constitutes a falsification of the expansion theory. Attempts to include this information on the appropriate articles were reverted.

This is my take on it--- The big bang theory is derived from General relativity which is a theory of gravitation. GR does not include electromagnetic effects. Thus the big bang attempts to explain cosmology using only gravity.

For example, a Black hole is observed to spew out tremendous amounts of matter, but gravity cannopt explain this outpouring when gravity would be pulling matter inwards. So, a black hole has been conjectured to pull in matter but some of the (excess) matter is thrust back outward. The problem with this is that some black holes have been found without any inflowing matter around them.

crop circles
It seems that ALL scientific evidence has been deleted from the crop circle article. This leads Michaelbusch to state (paraphrasing) due to the lack of scientific evidence science concludes that all circles are hoaxed."

The lack of scientific evidence happened because the scientific evidence has been deleted,

Here is an excerpt from the discussion pages{

A study of the scientific evidence

This is an attempt to incorporate within the crop circle article those observations which have been reported by serious investigators in the field and the results of scientific analysis of those observations, using the scientific method. We will use the prevailing literature base for our domain of knowledge.

Scientific Investigators

Dr. Eltjo Hasellhof, a practicing physicist, once employed at Los Alaamos and several Dutch Institutes, presently the senior scientist at a medical imaging company in the U.K., has rigorously investigated the crop circle phenomenon. His findings are published in "Deepening complexity of Crop Circles:" by Eltjo H. Hasellhoff, Ph.D. The title of his dissertation was "Aspects if a Compton Free-Electron Laser". Also published in Physiologia Plantarum 111, vol. 1 (2000): 124. Dispersion of Energies in Wordwide Crop Formations" (Opinions and Comments)

As a good introduction to the phenomenon from the scientific perspective, Dr. Heselhoff writes: Page 128,

"The Facts:" "In the last twenty years. there has been much speculation about different aspects of crop circles. But it takes more than just a little reading to understand where the facts end and where the fiction begins. Personal involvement and investigation, field work, discussion with many people, crucial questions, and much thinking are needed to reveal the true character of the crop circle phenomenon. Unfortunately, much of the public infrmation is not very accurate or even is completely wrong, as a result of ignorance, lack of accuracy or objectivity. or simply evil intent. Although many alleged crop circle properties cannot bear the scrutiny of an objective analysis. some relativly simple observations seem to defy any trivial explanation. Biophysical anomalies, in terms of node leghtening and germination anomalies, are probably number one on this list. The lack of any indication of human presense or mechanical flattening, observed many times in even the most fragile and delicate species of crop, is perhaps somewhat less objective but still good for a second place. The awesome complexity and particularily the hidden geometry in many pictograms at least indicate that this cannot be the result of a simple joke. Even fantastic and extraordinaty observations, in the form of a radient balls of light hovering above a field and creating a crop circle, can fulfill the requirements that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." This extraordinary evidence was delivered in Chapter Three. The node-length measurements unambiguously showed a perfect symmetry in three different cross sections through the circular imprint, in perfect correlation with the radiation pattern of an electromagnetic point source. This is indeed the required extraordinaty evidence, which at least ought to open our minds to the dozens of other, similar eyewitness accounts, and of course the video material of the flying balls of light. Moreover, since identical findings were accepted for publication in the scientific literature, it is quite legitimate to say that the involvement of balls of light in crop circles formations has by now become a scientifically accepted fact. (3) And there is much more extraordinary evidence, in the form of burn marks on the bird box, delicately draped, undamaged carrot leaves; a virgin circle in a frozen field of snow, dead flies, and much more. Anyone who takes the time to explore and verify all of these findings personall find that the facts are plain: Something very strange is going on." At the conclusion of his report, Dr. Hasehoff presents his own conclusions:

Conclusion one: The suggestion that crop circles are all made by practical jokers with simple flattening tools is by no means sufficient to explain all documented observations.

Conclusion Two: The crop circle phenonmenon is often erroneously ridiculted and much undersestimated in its complexity.

Conclusion Three: The true nature of the crop circle phenonmenon is unknown to the general public.

Conclusion Four: "Those who are unqualified to judge should refrain from comment." (D.G. Terence Meaden)

Conclusion Five: Small radiation sources with an electomagnetic character ("Balls of Light") are directly involved in the creation of crop circles. (Their origin and exact character remain yet unknown.)

Conclusion Six: Something very strange is going on.

Your talk page
While it is true that you have more latitude on your own talk page than in others, I think it is necessary to remind you of the Wikipedia rules on inappropriate user page content. Repeating the soapbox ranting you posted prior to the ArbCom decision is non-useful and disruptive. Michaelbusch 18:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

to bring the project into disrepute
The link you provided reads: Inappropriate content There is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offence. Wikipedia is not a soapbox is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopaedia itself. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but remember: don't be a dick about it. It is my intention here to show that the evidence I tried to present at the ArbCom was true, and therefore should not be considered disruptive. It is necessary to do this because "content" was not allowed into the discussions, but the decision by four editors to ban me from science articles must have been due to content. rant v., ranted , ranting , rants. v.intr. To speak or write in an angry or violent manner; Woould you please be specific about my "anger?" Exactly where do I do as you claim?

I am trying my very best to not be angry. On the other hand when I think of what our children are being exposed to I can't help but be angry. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present what is out there in a balanced (read both sides of the story) manner. Yet it seems that at least these two controversial subjects are obviously slanted to one side or the other, to be specific, crucial evidence which would create a NPOV has been deleted. If there is anger it is because of the way I have been treated, specifically, I have been repeatedly insulted and demeaned both personally and professionally. And because crucial evidence which I edited in accordance with verifiability and reliability standards are repeatedly deleted. I can understand why, that evidence would drastically change the slant of the article. In the crop circle article, the evidence would indicate that reputable scientists determined that certain observations cannot be explained (Increased crystalization of clay, changes in seeding performance, plant cellular structure and more) and NOT that science claims all circles are man made. (Interestingly, Leavengood, a recognized botanist who had investigated the cellular changes found in some circles, now owns the patent and is selling seeds which show dramatic improvements over untreated seeds brought about an ion transport system he discovered in the crop circle seed while doing his research.) While in the Plasma cosmology the observations bring into question the assumptions of the big bang theory (periodicity of redshift spectral lines and evidence contrary to the expansion hypothesis, indicating that the big bang theory is NOT a proven fact of science. Disclaimer:  I went back and took a second look at my long ago talk page edits. It was unsettling I must admit. From my perspective I was writing passionately, but I can see easily how some of my comments went beyond passonate. I always tried to avoid personal atttacks, but clearly I was pushing the envelope. In my work I have not had to resort to defensive and subsequent take the offensive writing but that doesn't mean I should be doing it here. I can see how it would be counterproductive, even if I was right. I don't know what to say at this point, I guess I am not always competant at what I am doing.  Tom Mandel 03:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC) I am here to help. I am not here to disrupt. As the founding Chairman of the Primer group at ISSS, I can well appreciate the value of a resource such as Wikipedia. I myself have devoted years toward the education of others in the value of science. I am a simple person, and I believe that knowledge can be expressed in simple ways. Witness the simplicity of almost all "wise sayings". Einstein and Poincare also valued simplicity, but, alas, complexity is more challanging. Whitehead remarked once that our eduction system teaches far too much detail and the student loses it's grasp of the essential messge of science. As you know, science is not a doctrine, a kind of "scientism", rather it is a methodology, a verb. Science is what science does. And what science does is express the scientific findings such that others may express them as well. Scientists certainly are correct to have opinions, but it the facts of science that matters. So it is of utmost importance that the scientist has his facts straight. This is why those facts are testable - so that they may be verified by others. This is important to all of us because properly done, science is trustworthy. Science does not always have to have the answers. It is a wise scientist who admits "I don't know." Because only when we don't know, are we open to what can be known. Like that Zen saying, A filled cup cannot be filled. Science does not work if only one side of the story is told. One of the greatest advances in science at the turn of the last century was the discovery that blackbody radiation does not happen as the prevailing scientific thought predicted. It was only when Max Planck questioned and rejected the prevailing thought that he found a solution by quantization. And when Einstein used this discovery in his photoelectric paper quantum mechanics was born. It is because of this trust that science has a great responsibility. Bela Banathy spoke of this and in fact the Society for General Systems Research, the mother society of the systems field, was screated because the founders wanted a science to work for the good of humanity. At a ASSS meeting, five of them were discussing science when another attendee poked his head in and asked what was going on. "We were talking about science serving mankind" The other guy said "Oh, that's not my field." and left. Later they went to Berkeley and formed our society. What good is science if it doesn't improve humanity? It is not science to ignore one side and approve only of the other. Even a novice journalist knows that all sides of the story have to be presented. The journalist can color the story, but the scientist has the obligation to tell it like it is. I realize that Wikipedia is not here to do science. But it is here to report what science does. And in a way, especially in a humanistic way, that best we can do scientific integrity ought to be reflected by what we, you and I, teach. Integrity? Isn't that like the whole story? That is what is taught in Systems Theory Philosophy, by working together parts can create new wholes. We believe that the Universe is a self designing, "self-organizing" whole. That is why we can talk about principles, mathematics, logic, there is a way the Universe works. Working together. Systems Theory, let me stand up on the soapbox here, is about how thigs are working together, or if you want to be scientific about it, emergent relationships find common ground between separate parts forming wholes. New wholes. The controversy between science and religion is mostly about method rather than content. As Karl Jung points out, science is not the only form of knowledge there is. All great minds know this and often refer to the non-scientific literature to make their point. Science excells and thus is able to change and evolve because scientific knowledge is based on experience, And here experience is opposed by theory. Like Einstein said, the observation superceeds the theory.

209.247.5.18 00:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just the facts
It isn't that I didn't ask for help, I joined the community forum, asking if it was ethical for a supporter the big bang theory to edit articles which question the big bang theory. The answer I got was something like "Admins can do damn well as they please" and "I am new here, but it seems that if it were a positive edit then it is ethical, but if it is a negative edit then it is not ethical." I asked for help from the Advocate list but did not receive a reply. I even wrote to one personally but did not get any reply. Eventually I wrote to AddHoc who did reply. Very little advice tho, but he did comment at the ArbCom "Tommysun's infractions are trivial." And now I have written Flonight, but no reply.

209.247.5.18 23:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)