2013, January

Nomination of Oren Laurent for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oren Laurent 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oren Laurent 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. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

February

Europe Business Assembly

Hi Maproom, I see you commented on Europe Business Assembly at the Helpdesk. There's an AfD discussion for this article going on at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Europe_Business_Assembly; perhaps you'd like to weigh in. Thanks. --Brindt (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

NK Maribor players

Thank you for your help with the sorting table. Now I can finish the lead and nominate the list:) Ratipok (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Wet, wet and wetter

Hi. You may recall this help-desk query which you recently resolved by moving WET Design to WET (Water Entertainment Technologies). You seemed to have been followed by a few more moves as follows:

Maproom (talk · contribs) moved WET Design to WET (Water Entertainment Technologies) in this diff
Orangemike (talk · contribs) then moved WET (Water Entertainment Technologies) to Water Entertainment Technologies in this diff
Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) then moved Water Entertainment Technologies to WET Enterprises in this diff

If I caused all this with my response to the original poster (WETpublisher (talk · contribs)), I sincerely apologise. Please do let me know how I could have handled said poster differently. As a courtesy, I will notify both OrangeMike and Anthony Appleyard of this section. I am not saying anyone has done anything wrong. Far from it --Senra (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of the way we do titles is that WET (Water Entertainment Technologies) was the worst possible choice. I looked at the links provided, and concluded that all the versions with WET in them derived from the title Water Entertainment Technologies. The fact that they use WET Enterprises themselves, at least sometimes, seems to be trumped by the fact that WET in that last version stands for, you guessed it, Water Entertainment Technologies. It's obvious that everybody involved has been working in good faith to resolve the query of the original querent, and I am not going to fuss over any outcome except WET (Water Entertainment Technologies), which would be UN (United Nations)-bad as an article title.

I accept your apology – and consider that no apology was needed. I did what a user asked for, and was then surprised to see further moves by other, more knowledgeable and experienced editors. I kept out of that, and will continue to do so. Maproom (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

March

Shade: Wrath of Angels

It seems a bit premature to add an IP poster's claim of artist credit to a game without verification, doesn't it? We get lots of people asking for edits, many of which unfortunately never come up with any verifiable evidence of their statements. Or did you get verification somewhere? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right, I should not have done that. I see that Ukexpat has tagged the article as needing sources. Maproom (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

/* Fixing this page title to Vysochanskij-Petunin inequality */

First of all I would like to thank you for your prompt response and help. Secondly the renaming you have done is absolutely correct. I left more details on a "Vysochanskij-Petunin inequality" page as a reply to your message. I really appreciate that you care.

Gchoul (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your latest comment. I am not sure how the decision is made in Wikipedia, but I what I want is to provide info for the people who care for Wikipedia. If say, you want to make a change to ii across all Wikipedia then what are you going to do with one of the most famous writer's name Dostoyevsky ???

If you really decide to make a change to ii then you will invent a new name Dostoyevskii

Does Wikipedia really want to make a revolution in spelling ?

Now see, the ending of the names Dostoyevsky and Vysochanskij in Russian is absolutely the same so the most correct option in English would be certainly Vysochansky.

I need to repeat here that I would definitely put ending "y" or "i" in this name, but you cannot change the name in the reference. It means that we do not have much choice here and must stick to the name in the reference - Vysochanskij as the only source available. And one more thing. Please give me an example of the name in Wiki that has "ii" at the end. Maybe there is some misunderstanding in this discussion Gchoul (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to prefer the form that is most usual in modern English-language texts. With Fyodor Dostoyevsky that has been easy to agree on, with Kiev it has been impossible. If I have time, I will look at all the articles that mention Vysochanskii, check all the English-language sources that they cite, and find which spelling is most common. Maproom (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Oton

The user Gaming&Computing has removed a large portion of the ad-drivel, but I still believe GNG is not met. If you still support your initial !vote, please reiterate your support on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oton page. Thanks! -Kai445 (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Klein graphs

(discussion moved from David Eppstein's page)

By the way, are you sure about the chromatic number 3 for the 7-regular one? MathWorld says 4. --MathsPoetry (talk) 13:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right about chromatic number, that's my mistake, I will correct it. So you have used two separate articles, and a disambiguation page. This seems a good plan – but the rules of English Wikipedia, I believe, say that if there are only two articles, we should not use a disambiguation page, but instead place links from each to the other. Maproom (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a solution as well. I don't think we have such rules (or at least I never heard about them). Since we can put some minimalistic text on the disambiguation page (like: both graphs are named after Felix Klein, both have the same number of edges, both can be embedded on a surface of genus 3), there is a justification for that disambiguation page, I would say. --MathsPoetry (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW in your correction you forgot one occurrence of the chromatic number, and the chromatic index is wrong as well (I believe it's 7). There are also incoherences in the cubic one. --MathsPoetry (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I have corrected these errors. And I agree that the chromatic index of the 7-valent version is 7. I confirmed this by drawing and uploading a 7-coloured version (I suppose technically that counts as original research and is forbidden here). Maproom (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

At least it is a known result that the chromatic index of a regular graph cannot be less than its degree

. For the remark about original research, I won't comment on this since I strongly disagree with the policy here. --MathsPoetry (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

There are editors who would add a ^{[citation needed]} tag to your remark about the chromatic index

. Maproom (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I am part of these evil editors

. I find the English-speaking Wikipedia way too tolerant towards original research and I disagree with Wikipedia:No original research#Routine calculations when it is being used as an umbrella to protect original research against deletion. For example, what guarantees that there are no two edges of same color in your drawing? It is rather intricated and hard to check. Or what guarantees that your drawing faithfully copies the original Klein graph? That's a verifiability problem.

That rant put apart, I really do appreciate your drawing with the seven colors as a useful contribution to Wikipedia

. Don't consider me as more rigorist than I really am. And by the way, thanks for your Klein graph article. Would you keep me informed if you write other graph-related articles?

In the other direction, I just wrote fr:Dimension (théorie des graphes) to cover the idea of the euclidian dimension of a graph. --MathsPoetry (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I will probably use this to create an en:Wikipedia article on Dimension (graph theory). It is interesting. I had never encountered the concept until now. Maproom (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I had the same thoughts, it's really interesting. If you experience problems with French language and if Google translate does not help, a good introduction is in Alexander Soifer's book, The Mathematical Coloring Book (Springer). He dedicates a whole chapter to this notion. Best, --MathsPoetry (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you should rename "Klein graph" to "Klein graphs" for consistency with the other pages that describe several graphs in the category Category:Individual graphs. --MathsPoetry (talk) 11:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I have moved it. Maproom (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

hi thank you for answering wiki talk

I have been trying to edit best selling  album for History past present and future and

I keep getting reverted by Bluesatelite, im not interested in editing best selling album anymore, I would like to know how I could report this user he/she 1. lied when he said there was concensus , I have been on that talk page, 2. said he would block me. how can I file a formal complaint against him/her. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This is about List of best-selling albums. Looking at the talk page, it seems to me that the consensus is against you. Two editors have been reverting your edits, User:Bluesatellite and User:Watquaza; I don't know who said they would block you. There is some danger of your being automatically blocked by the three revert rule. Incidentally, I know nothing about albums, nor the way their sales are counted for the purpose of that article. Maproom (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

right,,,,,, im not interested in editing that page anymore, im interested in filing a complaint against Bluesatelite for threatening to block me when I have always been in good standing (whatsmore

I might consult a legal friend to see if this individual "Bluesatelite" may have infringed on

my rights--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe you have any right to make edits to Wikipedia, but consult a legal friend if you wish. You may also want to read Wikipedia:No legal threats. Maproom (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

April

".... is a band."

Hi. I'm around 40, and I'm strongly oriented to say "Blur is a band" rather than "Blur are a band". The reason is, I imagine the sentence as a compacted version of "Blur is the name of a band comprised of ______ _____, ______ ______, _____ _____, and ____ ____."

For some reason, however, if we start talking about The Beatles or The Rolling Stones, "are" seems more correct than "is". I really don't know why!

--Ben Culture (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's simple: The Beatles - plural; Blur (not Blurs) singular. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, what matters is whether the name is plural (and not whether it ends with s: Oasis is a band). Maproom (talk) 09:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Clebsch graph, or Clebsch graphs?

Hi Maproom,

Could you have a look at Talk:Clebsch graph? My point is that there is only one such graph and that the article should be rewritten accordingly.

I suggest that David Eppstein gives his opinion before any action is taken. --MathsPoetry (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

May

Alistair Moffat

I have raised a topic regarding the section of BritainsDNA at WP:BLP. Your input would be appreciated. Stephen! ^Coming... 09:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Oxford Meetup 5

I'm sorry to see that you couldn't find us at the fourth Oxford Meetup. Two of us were wearing Wikipedia T-shirts including HJ Mitchell (who for a short period also had a laptop out); two had lapel badges. We were initially tucked in between the entrance and the stairs, but we moved to a bench behind the stairs when one became available. We have decided to hold the next Oxford meetup in one month's time, rather than two, so that it falls within Oxford term-time. A page has been created about the fifth Oxford Meetup; please sign up if you think that you are able to attend - if the date or venue are unsuitable, please comment at its discussion page.

Please spread the word to anybody else who you think might be interested. The next UK meetups are at: Glasgow; London; and Nottingham, all on 12 May 2013. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed you yesterday. I arrived at 13:15, searched downstairs without seeing a laptop or a WP shirt or badge, searched more thoroughly upstairs, then thoroughly again downstairs, and left at 13:20.

I think I can be there for the June meetup, but that day I'll be needing internet access, for an event I'll be organising. Do you know if Wetherspoons provides reliable wifi access? Maproom (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I arrived at about 13:10, and John of Reading (talk · contribs) was already there. We stood at the bar until RexxS (talk · contribs) and HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) arrived, at which point we moved to one of the tall tables between entrance and stairs, near the fruit machines - this would have been no later than 13:18, since I remember looking at my watch when at that table. HJ didn't open his laptop until over an hour later. Regarding the Wifi access - you're probably best asking HJ or Mervyn (talk · contribs) who have definitely used it, possibly RexxS, Grandiose (talk · contribs) or Jarry1250 (talk · contribs) at least one of whom also have. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The WiFi isn't terrible. It's nothing compared to having your own broadband box like you'd have at home, but you can check emails Wikipedia, etc without too much trouble. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds good enough. So I'll very likely be there for the June meetup. And I'll be using a laptop

Maproom (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just a reminder (because some people haven't seen the geonotice) that the fifth Oxford Meetup is this Sunday. Are you able to attend? It would be great if you could come. Look out for people like these. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Demi-hypercube in dimension 4

Hi Maproom,

If you add diagonals on each side of a regular 3D cube graph, you get a graph isomorphic to the 4D 16-cell. You can check by yourself by comparing with the illustration on the left on fr:Demi-hypercube (graphe). I did it, and the fact is sourced in Godsil. It applies to every dimension, if you add diagonals to a 2D square, you get the graph of a tetraedron, which is the half 3D-cube.

Such "jumps" from one dimension to the other are rather surprising, I do agree . You get another example with the complementary of the Clebsch graph which is built from the tesseract (4D) but can also be seen as the folded penteract (5D).

By the way, there is no article on the 16-cell graph, only on the geometrical object... --MathsPoetry (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I see – at least, I think I see. Thank you for correcting my mistake.

You're welcome. To make this more obvious, look at

half-4-cube
3-cube, planar

then add "crossed" edges on each side of the planar graph. you obtain almost the same graph as the 4-cube on the left. You can prove they are the same by exchanging selected pairs of vertices. Godsil gives an algebrical demonstration, but I think it's cooler to get convinced of it just with a piece of paper and a pen. --MathsPoetry (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

My problem was that with the first diagram for

{\frac {1}{2}}Q_{4}

, I am meant to look at the blue edges and ignore the grey edges; but with the second diagram, there are edges of four colours, and I am meant to look at all of them. This makes sense to me now. Maproom (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

In one diagram, one removes vertices, in the other diagram, one adds edges. I suppose this prevents from using the same graphical convention on both diagrams. --MathsPoetry (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Immersing and Embedding

I am still working on Dimension (graph theory), I will try and get some more done today. Maproom (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. Let me insist on replacing "immersed" with "embedded", it can be sourced with the original academic article. --MathsPoetry (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I still disagree. Graph embedding says "an embedding ... of a graph G on a surface Σ is a representation of G on Σ ... in such a way that: ... two arcs never intersect at a point which is interior to either of the arcs." It further explains "... edges may intersect only at their endpoints". Ok, as you say, there is also a weaker sense – but it must be better to use terms in their standard sense, the one defined first in the WP article. Maproom (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. But using 'embedding' in graph theory in its weaker sense is fairly common. It is commonly used on the English Wikipedia. It is also used on the original articles defining graph dimension, Euclidian graph dimension, and faithful dimension. At least add a footnote saying that the original authors used the word "embedding". --MathsPoetry (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Done Thank you, the current footnote is very satisfying and precise. --MathsPoetry (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Little help

Maproom,

See this diff, I fixed a few oopsies and helped with the conversion from French templates to their English counterparts. Best, --MathsPoetry (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Bob Rupe for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bob Rupe 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Rupe 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 notice from the top of the article. Apteva (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Susan J. Elliott

She wasn't trying to make friends by shouting. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right. Maproom (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chian diaspora may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Crescent English School for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Crescent English School 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crescent English School 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 notice from the top of the article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

June

Oxford Meetup 6

Thank you for attending the fifth Oxford Meetup, and it was a pleasure meeting you. I intended to send this message on Monday, but I've been a bit busy, sorry.

Several of us would like to continue with the monthly plan, since trying to make a two-monthly cycle fit into the University terms doesn't work very well. A page has been created about the sixth Oxford Meetup; please sign up if you think that you are able to attend - if the date or venue are unsuitable, please comment at its discussion page.

Please spread the word to anybody else who you think might be interested. The next UK meetups are at: London, 16 June; Manchester, 22 June; and Coventry, 7 July. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, it was pointed out to me that 7 July 2013 collides with Coventry 8, who have a prior claim to the date. Since nobody has (yet) claimed 14 July for any UK meetups, I have decided that Oxford 6 should be held on 14 July 2013, and not 7 July as previously advertised. In this way, those who wish to attend both may do so. I hope the revised Oxford date is convenient for you; and if it isn't, why not give Coventry a try? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks re: Reverse T3

Dear "Maproom";

I am grateful for your interest and response. I appreciate your concerns.

I will create a sandbox for my account and will put my paper on rT3 onto it as quickly as my learning curve will allow.

If you have the time and patience to review the proposed entry, I'd really appreciate your input.

Thanks so much! Alan McDaniel. Njmcdaniel (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello again!

Thanks for the note you sent to my page. I've run into a snag, it seems and wonder if you might know the solution.

In following the suggestions you and John sent, I've tried to download the file given at Help:WordToWiki but it isn't working.

My computer-savvy nephew wrote: "I'm having a Word 2007 issue. I've corrected the "normal.dot" to "normal.dotm" but it still won't debug to upload. Also tried the normal1.dotm and that didn't work, either."

Have you any suggestions? Thanks again! Alan. Njmcdaniel (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

My Friend: Thanks for your prompt reply and most kind offer. Fortunately, I've been able to muddle my way along fairly well on my own "sandbox," as you've suggested. I shall let you know when my rT3 paper has been entered and we'll see what you think of it. Sorry the tandem mass spec section is so miniscule - but I love the method! Alan. Njmcdaniel (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Reverse T3 article is ready for you in my sandbox

Dear Maproom;

I am so happy to be finished downloading my article. I am sure you know this already, but it is up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Njmcdaniel/sandbox. I think the content justifies, actually requires the length - and I'm looking forward to your opinion.

As another thought, should I post a note like this somewhere on the existing rT3 "stub" site and solicit other advice - or shall your and John Broughton's opinions suffice? I'm in your hands.

Thanks again, ever so much! Alan. Njmcdaniel (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Nadal

Go to Talk:Rafael Nadal, I have sandboxed a new version, so tell me if you like it?HotHat (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Done, if you want to edit see Rafael Nadal.HotHat (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see that someone has done good work there. I'm sorry, I have been away for a week and done nothing, but it worked out well. Maproom (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Maproom. You have new messages at Vanjagenije's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

July

Lordship of Anholt

A map of the 16th century political situation to illustrate Daniel Rogers (diplomat)#In captivity would be a fine thing. It really must be very small, though: no more than a largish estate (the area figure in the article is suspect, see Talk:Lordship of Anholt). I was having quite a business yesterday working out the kidnap story, worthy of Somali pirates. After a big struggle with the 16th century spellings, it seems clear to me that Rogers was shuffled round Anholt and its neighbours (Duchy of Cleves, Gelderland, Bishopric of Münster) nearly in find-the-lady style. The sources don't seem that bothered with the details. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

August

Yeung Ku-wan

I've performed the move. FYI, please don't blank redirects — it doesn't make the move possible, so the only effect is that people can't easily go from the redirect to its target. Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Of that Ilk

Hi, the Collins Scottish Clan & Family Ecycleopedia uses a captial "I". "Of that Ilk". Thanks.QuintusPetillius (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to LordQuest may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

=== [[Promise (rapper)|Promise]] - ''[[Awakening (Album)|Awakening]===

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Maproom. You have new messages at Talk:Parity of zero.
Message added 22:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

September

Oxford Meetup 9

Hi, I've created m:Meetup/Oxford/9 with no date, would October 13 or October 20 be most convenient for you? There's a discussion page at m:Talk:Meetup/Oxford/9 so that a date may be agreed. Please comment there. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio tag

Hi Maproom: You tagged the plot section at The Duck House with the copyvio template, but you didn't create a listing at that day's reports (which I have now done) or notify the creator, User:Blethering Scot; I dropped him a note when I pulled the DYK from the Main Page. Please be sure to do these steps next time you have to apply that template (if it should sadly be required) so that the process can move along and the problem be fixed expeditiously. Thanks. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I read some of Wikipedia:Copyright violations, but I clearly did not read it all, or thoroughly. I have now offered my humble apologies to Blethering Scot, on the article's talk page. I shall be much more careful in future before using tags. Maproom (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

October

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Orthodox Christianity in Taiwan". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 05:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ramtha's School of Enlightenment

Hi there Maproom. I thought I'd leave you a message here because my comment on the Help desk page isn't on the main page anymore. Yes, DES is right, my draft is here: User:Calstarry/Ramtha's School draft. It sounds like you've had a chance to look at it.

First: I did not find any articles that say the school is widely regarded as a cult, so adding this in as a fact doesn't seem right to me. In today's use of the word, "cult" is a derogatory term, so if we're going to make a general statement about the school being a cult, especially asserting that the view is "widely held", we would need multiple, accurate sources indicating that this is the prevalent view regarding Ramtha's School of Enlightenment. Do you know of any?

Yes. I find two such references, currently numbered 4 and 24, in the J. Z. Knight article. I admit that I have not tried to read them.

I have no problem mentioning that the school has been described as a cult, but I think that major criticism like this should be linked to specific critics, which I've done in my version where I wrote:

"The organization has been called a cult or a scam by both members of LARSE and several other former students.[3][7][2]"

Second: My intent is certainly not to present Ramtha as if he is real, but instead to provide an accurate account of the school's teachings in a neutral way. In articles for new religious movements, such as Cao Dai, beliefs are clearly labeled as such, but once labelled, are discussed as if real. The intro to the article for Tenrikyo, for example, contains the sentence "Followers of Tenrikyo believe that God, known by several names including Tenri-O-no-Mikoto, expressed divine will through Nakayama's role as the Shrine of God…" Note that it doesn't say, for example, "...allegedly expressed divine will…" or something similar. This is the model I was trying to follow.

Anyhow, I've gone back through my draft and rephrased some areas that I think you might be concerned about. Can you point to specific spots that you are still concerned about?

While Wikipedia already has a description of these teachings at J. Z. Knight, I see little point in creating a rival version.

Third: I'm a little worried that you've taken the current article at face value. If you look closely you'll see that the article is biased and very critical of the school. Also, many of the references used, especially in the current Controversy and criticism section are not reliable, or even accessible. As I've said, I am not a member of this school, so I have no personal experience with the subject matter, all I can go off of are news articles and my understanding of Wikipedia policies.

You may be right. I have only looked at two or three of the references in the current article. If you consider the article biassed, you should discuss the issues on its talk page, rather than aiming to create another article, on largely the same topics, that disagrees with it.

I think it would be beneficial if we talked about smaller points of my version and we can work through edits that way. Are there specific parts you'd like to see changed? Calstarry (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

As I have said, I think you are going about this the wrong way. I am reluctant to spend time on a critique of a draft article, that is unlikely ever to replace the current one. Even if you alter your draft article to the point where I think it is unbiassed, you will have a very hard battle persuading other editors to allow you to replace the current article by your version.

All indented comments above are by Maproom (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC).

Hi. I just wanted to follow up with you on a few things. The two sources you pointed to in the JZ Knight entry don't state that the school is widely believed to be a cult. The first article looks like it was originally published in Cosmopolitan in 1991, but doesn't directly state that the school is a cult and the other reference is a book called "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer. That book can be used to explain his beliefs about the school, but it doesn't seem like it can be used as a source to say that it is "widely regarded" as a cult.

Also, I'm not trying to create a rival version to the description of the school's teachings in the JZ Knight entry. The school's teachings are already discussed in the school's entry and their inclusion there is very important to telling the whole story of the school. I'm just looking to improve what is currently on the Ramtha's page.

Anyhow, I completely understand your reluctance to put your own time into this. That is no problem, I'll look around for other editors. Calstarry (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Maproom. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Message added 23:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DES ^(talk) 23:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

November

December

Remove defamatory content

Please remove the defamatory content about Professor Ronin posted on the Energetically modified cement. Wikipedia is not a platform for unsupported personal attacks. Wikipedia:NPA. There is no way to justify your comment.

I ask you immediately to do this immediately, or I will report it and then remove it myself.

I do now believe that Ronin is a fraud. Maybe I am mistaken, but that is what I believe. My belief is based entirely on your own evasiveness. Maproom (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.

213.66.81.80 (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You have made three unsigned-comments in the response I made to 50.65.16.49 (talk), on the Talk page of Energetically modified cement:

1. "No-one is asking for "understanding to the nth degree". We are asking for an explanation of what the process is. Every Wikipedia article should start by saying what it is about."

Question: Who is "we"? The article is about Energetically Modified Cement. It is NOT an article about the "EMC Activation" process.

"We" is me, and, I believe, 50.65.16.49. Maproom (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

2. "You believe that those who do not subscribe to your brand of snake oil are not qualified to comment on it."

Question: Please justify your comment "snake oil"

You write at length about the superior qualities of EMC cement, but refuse to say what it is or how it differs from other cement. This is characteristic of a snake oil salesman. Maproom (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

3. Almost the entire article promotes the EMC process. Nothing in the article explains what it is. Maybe this is because the nature of the process is a trade secret. In that case, the article ought to say so.

Comment: The article does not "promote" at all. It is NOT an article about the EMC Process. It is about Energetically Modified Cement. The process is patented. Multiple times over in many many territories. That process continues. That means the process NOT "secret" AND it has satisfied the USPTO on MULTIPLE INSTANCES.

So what is Energetically Modified Cement? How does differ from other cement? (I do not expect you to answer these questions.) Maproom (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Question: Do you know anything whatsoever about the mechanism of obtaining a patent for "process patents" and what that implies if a patent is granted?

No, I do not. Maproom (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Finally, are you 50.65.16.49???

I am not. I know nothing about him – though I see that his IP address suggests that he is in Canada. I am in England. Maproom (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

213.66.81.80 (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

In answer to the above:

There is a whole section devoted to the process. But the article is NOT about the process. It is about Energetically Modified cements. The article fully explains what it is about. It is NOT what you think it is about and there is a sharp difference.

I have stated that the issue for deeper explanation is not about explaining the mechanism in any greater detail (I could write an entire paper) - it is Wikipedia's OWN policy on "no original research".

Because a deeper explanation is bootstrapped by Wikipedia's OWN policy, you believe that gives you "absolute license" to make a defamatory comment about a living person despite that you have no knowledge of the subject. You have acted on your impulse and also by implication placed me into the "fraud category". You are required to imply "good faith".

On your talk page you have admitted you know nothing about the mechanism for gaining a patent. Let alone that Ronin has multiple patents. Each in multiple territories. Go and check out the webpage. This means he has satisfied the STRICT rigors of USPTO requirements, on numerous occasions, of which you admit, you know nothing about.

So let me put it this way: if this was "snake oil" then it would not gain a patent. Also, if this was "just" grinding, it would not gain a patent. Let alone that more concrete has been poured than the entire Hoover Dam. Let alone that the concretes produced by EMCs have been accepted by a number of US DOTs. Let alone that the academic establishment in Sweden has been "behind this" 100% for OVER 20 years. Do I need to labor this?

You are not just accusing Ronin of "fraud" but significant portions of the Swedish Academic establishment. And also, the USPTO by implication. It is simply unacceptable for anyone to do this, let alone someone who has zero knowledge of the subject, the application-environment rules and regulations, and the rigors of patenting processes.

Please remove the defamatory comment immediately or I will remove it and report it.

To answer your question:

So what is Energetically Modified Cement? How does differ from other cement?

An Energetically Modified cement is a cementitous material that has been produced using the EMC Activation process. It differs from "other cement" (i.e. Portland cement) on a number of footings. When used to make concrete, it has well-documented benefits over concretes made from Portland Cement ---- as set out in the article. Strength gains, ASR gains, encapsulation gains, "self-healing" gains, durability gains, resistance to cl- ion attack, resistance to cracking (for example caused by DEF) etc., etc., etc.

In the "environmental" benefits, it saves 1000kg to 1400kgs of CO2 for every ton of Portland cement it replaces ---- and over 90~% of the energy required.

Put simply, it has the potential to represent the "third age" of concretes. The "first age" being the technologies used by the Greeks and Romans (and carried on until the advent of Portland cement less than 200 years ago). The "second" being the "Portland cement" age itself. EMCs use the same raw materials that the Romans used (pozzolans) but "re-casts" the entire experience into a "21st Century" performance requirement. This is because of "mechanical activation" of the raw materials used, such as fly ash or volcanic ash (NOT grinding per se).

213.66.81.80 (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You are still unable to explain how EMC cement differs from Portland cement. Your inability to explain this would make any reader sceptical. Maproom (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed Your Defamatory Content

With reference to the above section, I have removed your comments from the EMC talk page in its entirety. The discussion with the other user, that subsequently became polluted by your comments, had already been copied to my talk page (where that user had first placed its comments anyhow). That user has been informed. None of your defamatory contents are repeated on my talk page.

I am now asking you to remove the defamatory comments set out above. If you choose not to do so, that is your choice but I will escalate. You cannot be condoned for shooting from the hip, with zero knowledge of the subject, and zero knowledge of the mechanism of "process patents" and YET defame a living academic for reason other than "you feel like it".

Given you live in the UK, given today's news there regarding law controlling commenting on social media, then you of all people should know the danger of unguarded written expressions. And, that anything typed on Wikipedia has the potential to be libelous in law. This is because anything on the web is a "publication". For this reason, it is important that all users of Wikipedia exercise sound judgment before making outrageous and highly damaging comments which could affect a person's standing in their community or lead to major disruption to that persons job/projects. You have no such right to "play God".

You MUST not make such accusations openly. If you continue to do so elsewhere on Wikipedia, will lead to you being permanently banned. Wikipedia is NOT a platform for any person to "shoot their mouths off" in any way they want. If you think it is such a platform, you should leave. Before you cause further damage.

213.66.81.80 (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

further section added to EMC page

Hi there... I have added a further well-referenced section devoted to how EMCs (in common with all pozzolanic cementitious materials), improve the chemistry of Concrete and its propensity for "self healing". This might be enough to meet your concerns, because I have still yet to figure out how to resolve the "bootstrap issue" above, which (in contrast), is not about improving the chemistry of concrete, but, instead, about how EMC Activation causes its effects (i.e., to then allow it to be used in concrete ---- to to gain the chemical effects in concrete). If you want to, let me know what you think. Kind regards 213.66.81.80 (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

As I see it, the main problem of the article is that no-one has explained what EMC activation is. Maybe this is because you don't know; maybe you do know, but refuse to say because it is a trade secret; or maybe there is in fact no such process. You have mentioned that the process has been patented, as if this were a guarantee that the process is genuine and useful. I have a little experience of patents, and I am aware that it is possible to obtain a patent for a process which has no useful effect, and even for a process which cannot be performed.

On a maybe less controversial matter: I believe that the main energy input in making portland cement is in heating lime, to drive off the carbon dioxide and make it more reactive. You have claimed that making EMCs is more energy-efficient than making portland cement. Does the making of EMCs still involve heating lime to drive off carbon dioxide? Maproom (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

A map of London in c. 1804?

You might well know more than I do. Something like [1], which is 1814, would be very useful on a new list of mine, List of places of worship in London, 1804. No doubt I should never have started it, but it seemed much more "panoramic" than my usual round of biographies.

"London" is obviously a negotiable term at the best of times, but it clearly in that context meant City of London, Westminster, Southwark and quite a bit along the Thames: also some inland areas. Not really spreading far to the north of the City, it seems to me, but working on this article convinces me I don't know London that well, in the first place. Too much to hope for to get the meeting-houses marked. There were parishes of course, and there were local government wards, and I don't know how those related. The addresses given remind me of the chome system. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The best I can find is Bacon's "Atlas of London and Suburbs", "revised edition". It has detailed maps, but is much later than 1804, it has plenty of railway stations (and no publication date). Would this be any use? Maproom (talk) 10:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

— There's also this; or preferably, a cleaner, less heavily coloured version of it, which I could scan from the 1873 edition of the same SDUK atlas. Maproom (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

By chance, today I saw "Cary's New and Accurate Plan of London" (1818), in an exhibition; which is a very fine map for my purposes. There is a 1795 version online here that I have just found. It does actually mark meeting-houses, with empty outlines, as well as numbering churches. So I have plenty to work with at present. The one I saw was this one at the British Library. Apparently there were editions every three or four years? There are details. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

content suppressed

--

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

I don't know why you think I might be interested. I shall ignore it, no harm is done here. But I believe it is cruel and counterproductive to inflict this thing on new editors. Maproom (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)