User talk:XOR'easter/2019b

WP:AFD

An article you created or have contributed to has been nominated for deletion
Click the image for an important message. Like, it's April Fools' Day today, you know? So...   Keep   on   keepin'   on!    North America1000 10:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Ian Gow speech merger

It was your proposal that this article should be merged rather than simply deleted (I think the Gow article has plenty on the matter already): 6 days on, will you be acting on it? Kevin McE (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kevin McE: Thanks for the reminder. I merged the few sentences that seemed worth keeping. XOR'easter (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Carnot's theorem (geometry)

I have reverted your move of Carnot's theorem (inradius and circumradius) to Carnot's theorem (geometry) because most of the other "Carnot's theorem"s about which Wikipedia has articles are also about elementary geometry. I have made Carnot's theorem (geometry) into a disambiguation page. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

canvasing

As I pointed out at the ANI I was referring in my post to this [[1]], at the time I was not aware you could in fact just post one comment, so posted the feed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I read that tweet. It advises those concerned to ask among friends and colleagues familiar with Wikipeida's hermetic rules to fairly comment to keep, if they support that. I find nothing whatsoever wrong about this. XOR'easter (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

It is asking them to vote keep, not to vote. It does not say (as we would require) "there is a vote, vote" it says "there is a vote, vote keep". It is no different from when Mark Dice ask his supported and friends to do the same.Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

fairly comment to keep, if they support that != there is a vote, vote keep. I have also been on the other side of "canvassing" like that, on occasions when a colleague notices that a page relevant to one of our research topics is tagged for cleanup or nominated for deletion. Invariably, nobody wants to come close enough to even touch an AfD with a pole. So, having experience both as an outsider to and as a participant in this project, my concern meter doesn't even blip. XOR'easter (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Well lets put it like this, if that had been posted on Wikipedia it would have been canvasing, anything other then "there is a vote" is (as I have found out to my cost).Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I personally award you this barnstar for surviving literally everything that happened in Jean-Pierre Petit. Simply reading through it is an insane burden to bare! NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Dispute

I have tagged you in a dispute on the dispute resolution noticeboard. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Second opinion on Draft:David Hutchinson (physicist)

Hi XOR'easter -- I note you're a physicist who is active in science-related AfDs, and I wonder if you could take a quick look at Draft:David Hutchinson (physicist) and see what you think. I'm concerned because it was created by someone who works for the institute he directs. I came across this as a rejected G13-expired draft, thought the subject looked notable, and think being a fellow of the Institute of Physics alone might meet WP:PROF. However I'm having difficulty finding any independent sources at all (does the IoP publish a fellows list? – I can't find one on their website) and the citation record does not look particularly stellar to me. Thanks in advance for any advice, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I can't find an IoP fellows list online either, which is exasperating. He might pass WP:PROF#C6 as past president of the New Zealand Institute of Physics. XOR'easter (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess the IoP don't think that they exist to provide one-click Wikipedia notability to physicists! One would have thought it would have been a selling point. I'll accept the draft and see if anyone cares to discuss the notability at AfD. As a side note, I wonder why New Zealand Institute of Physics is a red link? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

Your recent editing history at Bogdanov Affair shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
The IP is being needlessly combative, but still 3RR applies to everyone. Bensci54 (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bensci54: Thank you for your words of caution. Seeing how the IP conducts themselves at talk pages, and the sort of claims they leap to making, I doubt the BRD cycle will lead to anything other than interminable sniping. I left some comments over at the Edit-warring noticeboard, with a list of diffs that I think demonstrate a pattern of abrasive conduct. I may be mostly away for the next couple days, which probably means I'll get yelled at in absentia (though at least I won't be running the risk of breaking 3RR!). XOR'easter (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Yet you violated 3RR, anyway, by a lot. What gives? And you don't appear to have warned the IP about 3RR, so the violation does not apply to them. Sorry, but this does not look good. I should have blocked you, but I already protected the article, so that would be punitive. Still, please take this as a stern warning. Because, next time you violate 3RR, even by only one revert, you are likely to face a longer than usual block (closer to a week than 24 hours). El_C 04:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I've left more than one 3RR warning template. See User talk:125.238.202.190. Also User talk:124.197.10.206. And I tried raising the matter at RFP, but nobody other than the IP reacted. I know I did not handle myself very well, but I was dealing with someone who called me self-deluded for thinking that inter-language links had any utility. XOR'easter (talk) 04:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I stand corrected — the IP was warned. Anyway, what can I say? If it takes time for someone to see your request, it takes time. Continuing to revert back and fourth with the IP is not the answer. The IP attacking you is obviously not okay, but also not really a mitigating factor when it comes to edit warring to the point of violating 3RR. El_C 04:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Oh, almost forgot — I left one other warning (not a template, just a note), which they removed. I strongly suspect that they are a long-term problem editor — for reasons I laid out at the RFP linked above, if they're not WP:BKFIP, they are at times a surprisingly good facsimile. (Copying my point from there: this edit by a "Best Known For" IP made a very similar complaint to the IP at Bogdanov affair; compare No reader is so stupid that they need a hint to find the rest of the article and Exactly who is supposed to be so dumb that they need help to find the article from the lead section? [2]. Also, the history of Alraigo incident indicates that this is the same editor as 124.150.164.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who shares with a BKF IP a vehement dislike of supposed non-native English speakers making edits....)

I know that this does not absolve me of blowing my top, since although WP:3RRNO has that exemption for reverting banned users, the IP was not recognized as such by any ... what's the right term? Official body? Something like that. So yeah, I had my reasons, but I screwed up. I think you made the right call, and (not for the first time) I am wondering if this really is a good hobby for me. Best wishes, XOR'easter (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

How do you actually connect 82.132.221.179 with IP/s from today, though? Anyway, hope you choose to stay and continue to contribute. El_C 05:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@El C: The IP/s from this week seemed to have the kind of familiarity with Wikipedia that comes with long-term editing, so I got curious. Their distaste for calling anything "unique" [3][4] was the kind of rejection of anything deemed subjective that made a connection with WP:BKFIP seem at least plausible. I went to the most recent IPs listed there and skimmed the edit summaries. This from one of those resembled this from this week. The two edit summaries I quoted above really jumped out at me — parallel phrasing, in complaints about something I couldn't remember anyone complaining about before. 80.189.156.156 had an attitude about italics and boldface also displayed by one of the IPs from Bogdanov affair. Another IP on the list has a bugbear about "non-free text" and how it degrades "the encyclopaedia" [5], just like the IP at Bogdanov affair [6]. (They changed one word in a sentence, turning a close paraphrase into another close paraphrase.) Here is an IP from the BKFIP list asserting as this is English wikipedia, links to German articles are not useful, just like at Vienna bread here. Who else, ever, has complained about inter-language links? Ever? I'd never seen anyone gripe about that, and I spend an unhealthy amount of time here. Likewise, here is BKFIP last September removing an image gallery for the same reason as 101.98.126.25 on the 9th. So, it was all circumstantial, but I couldn't shake the association. XOR'easter (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Special Theory of Ether

You wrote about the Special Theory of Ether page "In addition, that single exception predates the Szosteks and provides no actual support for their claims or evidence that those claims have been taken seriously."

Scientific publications are proof of the serious treatment of the topic because each scientific journal requires a review. All the more the magazines from the Web of Science database.

No theory has full support. There are many physicists who criticize quantum physics, relativity and theories of the Big Bang. Therefore, not everyone will be interested in STE and they would take care of it.

'Special Theory of Ether' is officially in the scientific circuit because it has publications. It is recorded in the bases of magazines. These are undeniable encyclopedic facts, regardless of whether it is widely known. Scientific publications show that "claims have been taken seriously".Andrus31 (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

In short, no. The mere existence of publications, particularly in fringe or marginal journals, is insufficient to merit a Wikipedia article. All the more so when the publications in question have not attracted interest from anyone other than the authors themselves. XOR'easter (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Articles about Special Theory of Ether they come from international recognized scientific journals. Three of them are listed in the Web of Science database, it is "Results in Physics", "Moscow University Physics Bulletin", "Open Physics". I do not know where the opinion "marginal journals" comes from.

Even if "have not attracted interest from anyone other than the authors themselves" , the Special Theory of Ether is an encyclopedic fact because it is made public by independent sources, that is various scientific journals. This is an undeniable fact. Andrus31 (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

That's not how anything works. XOR'easter (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)