Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive 7

message: Some  has nominated Spherical model and Rodney J. Baxter for deletion. As the author, I would be biased, but I definitely think they are notable enough. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly support User:HappyCamper's handling of this; he closed the AfD's.  It appears that Physicsprof (talk • contribs • [ page moves] • block user • [ block log]) is a single-purpose account created for those AfD's; I am considering whether it ought to be blocked as (almsot certainly) misleading. -- SCZenz 08:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a twin of single-purpose account User:Mathguru. Note the similarity in names. Next we may see Chemwizard or Astropundit. --LambiamTalk 15:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good grief.  I missed that, but concur since of course Baxter of Yang-Baxter fame is highly notable! ---CH 03:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physics AfDs 

message: Discussion regarding a relatively new article, Plasma Universe, is underway on various related talkpages. In particular, on Talk:Astrophysical plasma and Talk:Plasma cosmology there has been discussion of merging the new article with these points. Please add your comments and possible remedies. --ScienceApologist 16:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plasma Universe questions

message: There is an edit war continuing to simmer over at Tired light. User:Harald88 seems to think that Paul Marmet's work qualifies for inclusion. I do not. We need some other people to help us determine a resolution. --ScienceApologist 18:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other people in that article whose notability is not obvious.  I've tried to start a discussion on the talk page. -- SCZenz 19:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul Marmet's articles are peer-reviewed, and have been decided by referees more knowledgable than us, to be worthy of publication.  The object of Wiki is to represent human knowledge irrespective of what editors think about a particular theory. I have no idea whether Marmet is right of wrong, but writing about his work neutrally is trivial. --Iantresman 20:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tired Light problems again

message: Some wikiprojects (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals) seem to very systematically identify their most important topics and work to improve those articles.  Would anyone here be interested in an initiative like that?   -- SCZenz 21:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good idea... that way we update pages that everyone agrees are important, not just the ones that get special attention. -- 0SpinBoson 19:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Key articles.  If people can go in and add articles they think fit the definition of key articles (basically, that they're important within the field of physics), that would be a good start.  Then we can start to think about what needs attention. -- SCZenz 08:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added some new topic & a few comments. --0SpinBoson 13:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Core articles 

message: Perhaps of interest... A peer review of Introduction to quantum mechanics has started here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Introduction to quantum mechanics/archive1. -- SCZenz 10:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction to QM peer review 

message: I've been working my way through the list of Dead-end pages (pages that don't link anywhere) and I came across Digital magnetofluidics.  The original article contained the sentence The consequent dipolar interactions among the particles form chain-like clusters, which follow the magnetic field lines and aggregate further to form long clusters and I've changed dipolar to bipolar as I've never heard of dipolar and in any case I think that they're synonymous.  Could someone just confirm this for me?  Additionally does anyone have any ideas where I should link bipolar to as at the moment the disambiguation page makes no mention of bipolar in this context?  Thanks RicDod 17:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Dipolar" is probably closer to being correct, but "dipole" is what should have been written. It refers to magnetic dipole field configurations. --Christopher Thomas 02:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for sorting this out. RicDod 19:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed 

message: Is this indeed, as this new article claims, "more fundamental and general than the uncertainty principle" for which "many attempts were made to formulate it mathematically, but they were not successful"? --LambiamTalk 01:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like the work of one researcher, from what I can see from the article. No idea if it's notable, much less correct. I've stuck an "expert attention" tag on it to get it to show up on the PNA list. --Christopher Thomas 02:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've looked around at this and concluded that a) this was a recreation of deleted material, and b) all of :the reasons for deletion are applicable still (non-notable, misrepresented subject).  Since I am an admin, I will delete it now. -- SCZenz 06:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It appears that one person may be using multiple accounts to add legitimacy to these additions.  If that user also uses those accounts to violate 3RR, then a sock check might be in order.  In the meantime, I'd ask everyone to keep an eye on Uncertainty principle to make sure that this rubbish isn't reintroduced. -- SCZenz 06:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Concur.  Even if this were seriously peer-reviewed research, new research does not go in articles on the foundations of quantum mechanics.  Fortunately, there are not so many physics articles on that google list as one might fear, and there is apparently more than one Arbatsky. -- SCZenz 07:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not "demogogy", it's a crucial part of our policies on not giving people with fringe theories a soapbox (a key part of our WP:NOR policy). Arbatsky can get a page on here for his theory once others accept it. Wikipedia is not a place to launch new investigations, which is what is pretty clear what is being attempted here. --Fastfission 15:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a place for scientific discussions of validity. We are doing inclusion decisions on purely formal grounds. --Pjacobi 15:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please don't recreate the article until it has appeared in a scientific journal that we can find some information on—it's not an unreasonable request, since essentially all journals in physics have (at least) their abstracts on the internet.  Until that happens, I think the reasons for the original deletion of the article remain valid, and so the article can be deleted as the recreation of deleted content.  -- SCZenz 15:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: We're only asking for any verifiable information on the journal at all—can you provide that? As for your last sentence, please see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a battleground.  If you want to appeal the original deletion, please do so at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. -- SCZenz 16:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Your threats to override community consensus are just plain rude; I think you may somewhat overestimate your own cleverness, or underestimate Wikipedia's experience at dealing with trolls, but it really doesn't matter.  Take it to Wikipedia:Deletion Review if you don't like what we're saying here—in all honesty, if you can give the details of the journal publication, you might have a case for further discussion of the article. -- SCZenz 19:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The whole point of taking it to deletion review is that you'll get a new audience.  Since there are just a few of us who are breaking Wikipedia policy, as you see it, then getting two dozen more people to look at it ought to help you. They'll correct us if they think we're wrong. -- SCZenz 00:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The only person trying to override consensus is yourself. Making idle threats about attempts to subvert policies is not a way to convince anyone; it is rather an almost sure-fire way to get yourself blocked on here. People have told you a few times what you should do if you want to get this article on here. If you don't or can't do either of those things, the article will not exist. I think people have been pretty patient with you, despite your arrogance and insults. --Fastfission 01:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like we've got a possible Arbatsky sockpuppet army to deal with here.--CSTAR 19:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm trying to think if it's worth writing up a sock check (i.e. socks used to evade the 3RR) and/or reviewing the rules for when you can block obvious rule-evading socks on sight (probably almost never).  I think it may be easiest just to revert any introduction of Arbatsky and the "Certainty Principle" without a proper citation on sight, as we have been doing. -- SCZenz 19:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very easy to create a "do not recreate this page" notice and then protect it, if he tries to keep creating it. --Fastfission 19:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All his edits are currently to Uncertainty principle, which I do not think unfortunately that we can get away with deleting. ;) -- SCZenz 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. No problem there; we can just block them on sight, and semi-protect the article if need be. I'm fairly certain that nobody will mind if we block obvious rule-evading socks on sight; it happens all the time. --Fastfission 21:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Such a policy exists. See Wikipedia:No original research. -- SCZenz 20:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: User:SCZenz/Arbatsky notes is where I'm keeping stuff.  Earlier puppets are all indef blocked as far as I know, see Theresa knott's blocks and mine. I'd been trying to decide all day whether to block the guy you cited; I will block him now. -- SCZenz 15:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a list of them now at :Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hryun. Despite his bravado he doesn't seem to have a unique way of doing things. It's as easy for us to block his accounts as it is for him to create them, and there are more of us. --Fastfission 01:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reminds me of a (slightly modified) Al Pacino quote: He is about as exciting to an admin as a toilet is to a plummer... Zarniwoot 01:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm there's something interesting in the naming of these sockpuppets. It's almost fun trying to guess the next one (Zildan? Ratol?). Maybe we should propose that we provide the name and block it right away. That saves everybody a lot of time.--CSTAR 02:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bingo!    Noisy | Talk 10:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed. Look at the threatening messages left on my talk page User talk:CSTAR; diffs here: .--CSTAR 13:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have blocked the IP address for a month.  We'll see if this affects our issues with the vandal in question.  I realize this is an extraordinary time to block an IP, but I will be monitoring carefully for collateral damage. -- SCZenz 20:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear that that was not the vandal's static IP address, or at least not the only one.  See history of this page. -- SCZenz 21:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I've placed a summary of the technical contents of the claim at User:Linas/Arbatsky's principle unmaksed. I do not support the recreation of the article, or a prolongation of the debate, or the insertion of links. I do however point out that, despite it's being a simple algebraic manipulation, having nothing do do with quantum mechanics, it does provide some interesting geometrical insight into the standard deviation of a generator. Its not deep, but its still curious. linas 20:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Certainty principle]] 

message: There is a person, editing under a variety of names, who is adding the template  to a number of articles.  I got into a disagreement with him/her already because he was over-writing the  template (which I was trying to add features to) for the same purpose; that disagreement seems to be over and he/she seems to be satisfied with the new template name, but now I have another question...  Is  really a desirable template to have in our major articles?  See, for example, particle physics, which had its original picture moved waaaay down the article in order to accomodate the template. -- SCZenz 13:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that template is kinda neat, but I don't prefer it to pictures.  Is there a way to accommodate both? -lethe talk [ +] 13:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could make the template wider and give it a flexible picture.  Or we could put it on the left, with a picture on the right, but I don't think that will look good.  Other ideas? -- SCZenz 13:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it could go at the bottom of the page?  I dunno, I'm not big on layout and stuff, but if someone made a good case, I could be convinced to keep it. -lethe talk [ +] 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now somebody put it up for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Physics Series. -- SCZenz 19:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Meh. -lethe talk [ +] 03:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Physics Series]] 

message: Appearently B. Roy Frieden, a Professor Emeritus of optics, discovered, late in life, that everything is related to everything and that information theory and ergodic theory and fluctuations etc. is the theory of everything and so on. Seems to be a manic phase, headed for a fall. Thus we have the highly suspect Extreme physical information article, which is at least pseudoscience and is probably worth an AfD discussion. There's leakage to Fisher information (bottom of article) and Lagrangian (section on "informqation lagrangian"), and possibly other places. The external web sites for Frieden's theories are crankier than my own cranky writing, ergo are far too far out there to be considered science. linas 15:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Listed for AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme physical information --DV8 2XL 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has some fans it seems. Unless some support for deletion shows up, it's going to fail on momentum. --DV8 2XL 17:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know, the guy seems to have published it in a number of mainstream sources. Nonsense or not, it seems verifiable and notable enough. --Fastfission 01:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have closed it, per DV8's request. -lethe talk [ +] 01:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess a lot can happen in half a day on the wiki. Well, no matter, still probably deserves some NPOV sticker and some active patrolling and investigation. One off-kilter article is relatively harmless; my concern sets in if/when this sort of stuff starts getting woven into mainstream articles. For example, the "information lagrangian"? Is that legit? Sure, there's 20 different kinds of entropy, and entropy is known to be closely tied to Shannon's ideas about information. Sure, dynamical systems abound with chaotic Hamiltonians and Lagrangians. No doubt, one might be able to plausibly define something that might be called an "information hamiltonian" or an "information lagrangian". But is the definition given by"extreme physical" actually within the bounds of plausibility? If not, it shouldn't be on WP. linas 03:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous POV-pushing edits by B. Roy Frieden 

message: I've created this article and added some basic content, but it still needs some work. Please have a look at it and see if you can improve it. O. Prytz 19:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hermann-Mauguin notation]] 

message: I put up Physics equations for AfD, but some feedback from some people in the physics project might be useful. -- Koffieyahoo 05:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Physics equations]] 

message: I'm not sure if I've asked before, but air ioniser needs some attention from people who actually know atomic physics.  It also needs references, to prevent it from getting gummed up again by future biased editors trying to sell products with "good ions" or whatever.  I'd do it myself, but I find a lot of conflicting info online. — Omegatron 02:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air ioniser 

message: I had hopes that this article would be recreated in a more neutral light, but it appears to have fallen into a very biased POV again. Some editors with more time than me should look into this. --Philosophus T 07:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just start deleting the OR sections.  Essentially, it seems that if User:KraMuc feels he is unwatched for long enough, he'll start throwing his own opinions into articles again. -- SCZenz 07:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This article is going out of control again.  KraMuc is violating WP:OWN a bit too much to keep it under control.  Are there any ideas about what to do? -- SCZenz 12:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also concerned about this, but too exhausted re other cruft patrol to help.  I think the only solution is to start proceedings against KraMuc for disruptive editing since IMO he has not responded constructively to talk page critiques. ---CH 20:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well,  is history, but an apparent sock as appeared and the article has not been fixed.  Another possibility would be an AfD.  I don't see much hope that this article can ever be fixed since the individual behind KraMuc seems so determined to keep mucking with it. ---CH 20:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Modern Galilean relativity]] again. 

message: I've added some features to the  template so that we can automatically list physics articles according to the importance of the subject and the quality of the article.  See here, where I've written up the use of the template.  I'm going to start by adding the caterogizations to the articles already listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Key articles, and I'd be deleted for the help.  The purpose of all this, in my view, is to help us focus a bit of attention on essential articles that should be excellent but may not be. -- SCZenz 09:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice, ahem, that all the articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Key articles except the one on nuclear fission are about particle physics.   Presumably this is because all the work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Key articles has so far been done by particle physicists.    I assume that your reason for posting the information about here is to invite physicists from other sub-disciplines to nominate non-particle articles as key and to assess them.   Is this correct?   Alison Chaiken 01:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you mean Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Physics_articles_by_quality? Zarniwoot 01:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, you're right!  Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics#Key articles is also light on condensed matter and statistical physics articles.    Presumably I should stop whining and add links to articles I think are key.    (For example, entropy must certainly be a key article.)   I'm confused as to what the relationship between Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Physics_articles_by_quality and Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics#Key articles is.   Why do we have two such lists? Alison Chaiken 17:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The key articles list was a first draft, then I thought it would be useful to use the tools (in terms of bot-based organization) that  already existed to organize more effectively.  Presumably people can edit whatever makes them happy, and I'll try to keep the two lists correlated.  Or we can do it some other way if someone prefers.  As for the articles all being particle physics, I categorized several articles that I've edited as I was testing the bot system, since I knew their quality and importance fairly well already. -- SCZenz 17:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Upon reflection, I think we should phase out the original key articles list once all its information is transferred, since the new organizational method has more functionality. (It's also what an increasing number of other WikiProjects are using.) But if others disagree, we can use whichever... -- SCZenz 17:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, having two lists is bad just because inevitably one of them will end up being poorly maintained.   I also agree that it's preferable to adopt whatever the wider community has chosen as the standard organizational method.   Thanks to Laurascudder for fixing my test template on entropy.   I'll start classifying some stat mech and condensed matter articles.    Anyone guess how many articles do we want on the list total as a reasonable goal? Alison Chaiken 03:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason not to classify as many articles as we want to.  Wikipedia as a whole should have 10K-20K key articles, by somebody's definition, so that means maybe 100 or so articles should be High- or Top-importance. But let's just classify for a while and see how it goes. -- SCZenz 13:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I started trying to classify the optics articles.  This is my first foray into this assessment scale, so feel free to tell me if I'm not interpreting it right.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article organization tool 

message: Is it possible to get automatically numbered equations that can be referred to in wiki articles? Count Iblis 18:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure you can do this by abusing one or more of the "reference" templates, but it's probably best to do it manually for now. Referencing methods change frequently, and didn't handle auto-numbering very well last time I looked at them either. --Christopher Thomas 20:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbered Equations etc.  

message: After seeing this edit to this page, I've blocked  indefinitely as an impersonator of User:SCZenz and probably a sock of User:Hryun. -lethe talk [ +] 15:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indef-blocked  for same reasons (s/SCZenz/CSTAR/) -lethe talk [ +] 23:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:BDuke looks like something like it. Zarniwoot 00:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly like them I think since I have been reverting their nonsense. --Bduke 00:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   blocked. -lethe talk [ +] 00:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Hryun_and_the_certainty_elephant.  -lethe talk [ +] 02:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  blocked CSZenz 

message: Hi all, a new user, , who is in real life fringe physicist Bernard Haisch, is edit warring regarding his wikibiography Bernard Haisch and some articles in which he has an interest, Journal of Scientific Exploration and Stochastic electrodynamics.  Please see also his user talk page, my user talk page, and the Paul August's user talk page.
Haisch also edits as an anon from the pltn13.pacbell.net domain (Southwestern Bell InterNet Services; geolocated in San Jose, CA) 
# adsl-69-107-150-126.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net
##5 June 2006 removes internal link to Bernard Haisch from List of UFO researchers
## 12 June 2006 confession of IRL identity
## 25 April 2006 implicit confession of IRL identity
##26 April 2006 example of edit adding citation to his own book (I think this is linkspam, although some of these are more justificable than others)
# adsl-69-107-144-172.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net
*the pltn13.sbcglobal.net domain (SBC Internet Services; geolocated in the Bay Area)
# adsl-71-146-176-178.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net
Important note: the pltn13.pacbell.net domain has also been used by Jack Sarfatti, who as you all  know has been permabanned.  I'd like to avoid that kind of mess from repeating itself with Haisch.  In any case, be aware that Sarfatti continues to occassionaly edit as an anon, and ironically he has also used this domain.  Even more ironically, Sarfatti doesn't care for Haisch and myself have sometimes reverted sarcastic comments by the Sarfatti anon in various articles mentioning Haisch!  (Just to add to the confusion, another user (apparently),  apparently also edits as the anon  and claims to have earned a Ph.D. from an American University and mentions other things which fit both Sarfatti and Haisch.  However, DrMorelos appears to have distinct fringe science interests.)
Returning to the edit war by Haisch: I feel (see the talk pages) that I have bent over backwards to 
#not overreact to some questionable anon edits by Haisch 
#be helpful to Haisch as a WP newbie (despite Digital Universe)
#not overreact to violations by  of WP:NLT-WP:CIV-WP:AGF
Remarkably, in a comment on my user talk page and without any prompting from me, Haisch himself raised the issue which most concerns me about allowing persons to edit articles about controversial "scientific" topics in which they are directly involved:
Needless to say, the issue which troubles me is that Haisch implicitly admits to a million dollar financial incentive :-/ to slant the WP in a pro-Haisch manner.  I find this deeply disturbing.
In the matter of Bernard Haisch, the original version of which I wrote and which Haisch keeps rewriting, I told him several times (and followed through on my promise) that I am willing to discuss his objections line by line.  I told him that I feel it is in the best interests of WP readers (and even himself) that he restrict his comments on articles on controversial topics in which he is directly involved to the talk page, but let me implement any changes in the article itself.  I have been through several iterations of this with him already, and have made a handful of minor factual corrections he suggested and also made other changes.  However, Haisch seems to insist on editing his own biography, an despite repeated polite warnings, he continues to leave insulting messages in various talk pages, which makes discussions with him unpleasant.  He also continues to edit his own biography (breaking up the flow of ideas and adding a pro-Haisch slant).  I have asked him to take a break for a few days to calm down but he also appears unwilling to try this.  Please help me discourage him from edit warring until he calms down enough to respect WP:CIV.  TIA ---CH 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable edits by [[User:Haisch]] and socks

message: Gee, I don't know if anyone is reading this page anymore, but I ask someone who isn't burned out on cruft control to take a good look at this one. ---CH 20:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems this has more to do with religion then physics? Zarniwoot 12:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Novelty theory]]

message: I find the article Physicist to be inoffensive and well enough written but to be completely redundant with other articles.    Please discuss its proposed deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Physicist.   Alison Chaiken 05:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deletion isn't the right choice for this, because we definitely want something to come up when this is typed in the search bar.  If it's completely redundant, it could be rewritten (for example to include a discussion of famous physicists), or redirected to physics.  -- SCZenz 06:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing [[Physicist]] for deletion 

message: Seems like I keep finding evidence of noxious shilling everywhere I look... The most recent edit by this anon (apparently none other than Roy Frieden in real life) is particularly egregious.  Not sure whether I should recuse myself since I posted some criticism to sci.physics.research in 1999; see the talk page.---CH 08:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am discussing this with Frieden via email and am cautiously optimistic these issues may be resolved. ---CH 20:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Extreme_physical_information]]

message: I am too exhausted from other cruft patrol to try to do much about this, but this article is a real problem in terms of presenting pseudoscience as respectable, misstatements of fact, and so on. ---CH 20:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take responsibility for this one.  It's actually not as bad to handle as some articles, becaues the problems are so blatant. -- SCZenz 21:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: My plan, very roughly, is to edit the article as though it were intended to be an NPOV discussion of a very minor viewpoint, and to simply ignore edits that don't aknowledge Wikipedia's basic policies.  The article is being continually rewritten into an argument, and it has been explained in detail that Wikipedia does not host such things, so I am not going to be patient on that point. If things get ugly, I'll do what seems reasonable and then probably have to put myself up for review on WP:AN/I.  For the moment, I've just deleted some uncited (and uncitable) arguments and added a lot of  tags, but I'll make more substantial revisions if I don't get a reply to a talk page question I just put up.  If anyone has a chance to look in on this article over the next few days and help me out, it would be much appreciated.  -- SCZenz 21:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to your talk page question, knowing little about the subject, and I'm not sure that KraMuc is coming back, as he has stated before that he is going to stop working on the article. Even if he did continue, I doubt he would give a satisfactory answer, as he hasn't answered any questions regarding mainstream physics satisfactorily before. You will probably have to come up with the answer yourself. --Philosophus T 22:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any material that nobody is able to cite, after a reasonable period of time, can be deleted.  I think it's very possible that it'll turn out that much of this article was the original views of KraMuc.  If so, there won't be much left when we're done. However, I expect that KraMuc will be back anyway. -- SCZenz 05:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  is apparently already back, as , an apparent sock. ---CH 20:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Modern Galilean relativity]]

message: As it looks like the AfD result will probably be keep, so I've started rewriting physicist after the first half of chemist because I like the way that article talks about the profession itself instead of just the subdisciplines.  I just barely got a start on it, but I wanted to let everyone know and maybe get some input on what you guys think the article should cover.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking that physicist should contain some statistical data about physics employment of the kind that the American Institute of Physics releases annually.    However, AIP data is only about the U.S.; does anyone know of comparable international data, maybe from IUPAP?    Also, do you think that we want any historical information in physicist?    History of physics is already a substantive article.   Alison Chaiken 04:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look around the IUPAP for some stats (I did get a little worried when I realized I only knew where to find the US stats and hadn't thought about the IUPAP as a resource).  As to the history thing, I think that the history summary in chemist is pretty awkward and so didn't try to do anything like it.  I do think there should be a place in the article for some history of the profession of physics. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting [[physicist]] 

message: ;Template:Perpetual motion machine 
An edit war has broken out on this template. PPM claims that Perpetual motion machine is a biased term, and that Free energy device is better. I claim that Perpetual motion machine is by far the more common term, and should be used. Would other editors care to look into this? Thanks, --Philosophus T 14:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The free energy device POV pushers have admitted that FED and PPM have different meanings.  Any further attempts to change the existing PPM template (as opposed to creating a FED template) is therefore vandalism and the 3RR does not apply. --Michael C. Price talk 17:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Your first edit was a reversion as well. --Philosophus T 14:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophus POV 

message: This is a little irregular, because the article in question has been the subject of heated debate, up to and including a ruling by the Arbitration Committee.  The history is long and sordid, but thanks to the many editors who have worked to clarify the issue, the article itself is pretty solid.  Earlier today, I noticed that John Baez called it an "excellent" article , and I had to wonder. . .  The continued sock puppet presence means that it'll be a long time before the page ever qualifies as "stable", which is a key Featured Article criterion, but it would still be nice to evaluate the page and see what the physics community thinks.
My own suspicion is that most or maybe all of the disruptive edits are coming from a community of one.  It will be a happy day when this person grows tired and finds something else to do.
All comments are welcome.  Due to restrictions posed by the Arbitration Committee — I said this was an irregular situation! — it is probably best to discuss changes on the Talk page first, just to avoid accidentally being confused with a sock puppet and being needlessly reverted.
Yours truly, Anville 19:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Woo hoo! 100 banned sockpuppets! :Category:Banned Wikipedia editors involved in the Bogdanov Affair. linas 21:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, my favourite was when a sock tried to pretend to be the ArbCom.  Anville 21:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The :Category:Banned Wikipedia editors involved in the Bogdanov Affair is a bit misleading, since some of the IP anons in fact appear to be socks for "Sophie" in Denmark, Amélie de Bourbon-Parme (an alleged personal friend of Igor B, near Paris), and YBM (near Paris, but with a differnet ISP from Igor B and A. de Parme).  Also, some of the early socks and IP anons are not listed there, and due to some kind of bug, sometimes both user talk pages and user pages are listed seperately. ---CH 02:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bogdanov Affair]] 

message: I have indefinitely blocked KraMuc.  See WP:AN/I#Indefinite block of KraMuc.  Please discuss there and not here. -- SCZenz 10:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indefinite block of KraMuc 

message: Can we get some more feedback?  So far only one outside comment. ---CH 20:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Der alte Hexenmeister]] 

message: Does anyone fancy cleaning this mess up, or shall we put it to AfD? --Bduke 08:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's absolute nonsense.  I urge AfD.  I am quite sick of cruft patrol right now so I hope this goes easily... ---CH 02:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: prodded. It'll go away on its own. linas 04:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Transitional kinetic energy]]

message: Geologician (talk • contribs) has been editing time to state that models of the universe that involve time repeating itself require spacetime to be embedded in a six-dimensional space. I've reverted, he reverted back. Mike Peel (talk • contribs) added a citation request and a note on Geologician's talk page, Geologician removed the citation request and added a figure he drew as the requested "proof". I've left a note on Geologician's talk page attempting to point him both WP:RS and to Riemannian geometry, and to explain that embedding the manifold in a higher-dimensional space is an unnecessary (and possibly impossible) operation, but I seriously doubt this will have the desired effect. Additional people with a grasp of geometry contributing to maintenance of time would probably help. --Christopher Thomas 21:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's also been editing the  disambiguation page, adding the same information. --Christopher Thomas 21:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolute nonsense, for sure.  Good grief.  The problem is that as far as I can tell in all the Wikipedia community, there are only a handful with math/physics background who are even trying to keep hoaxes, frank crackpottery (like the claims of ) out of the WP and to maintain NPOV in articles on scientifically controversial or fringe topics.  What if we threatened to go on strike or something?  :-/  I am really starting to wonder if the Wikimedia board really cares about WP:NPOV and accuracy issues.---CH 02:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This particular case shouldn't require much effort. All it would take is half a dozen people each reverting his re-insertion once to establish that he's acting against consensus and inserting information that experts deem factually inaccurate. I can take it from there (by diplomacy, then by RFC, then by carefully-measured escalation through the WP:DR list, though I hope that isn't needed). ObCaveat is, please read the additions (and his claims on the talk page, if you're a masochist) to make it clear that any reversion is a fully-informed judgement. --Christopher Thomas 03:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, you start by reverting the articles back to a junk free state and I'll join you.  --Michael C. Price talk 16:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed some of the funny stuff from time.  Revert at will on this stuff (up to 3RR); it's uncited, and a cite request has been ignored, so it's only edit warring in the most technical sense. -- SCZenz 16:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuing problems at [[time]]

message: It appears that magnetic photon is probably total whack. One of the principle actors is Rainer W. Kühne, an atlantis expert. I'm tempted to AfD it except that the mention of Abdus Salam confuses the issue. linas 03:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as the term is common it'd be worth keeping around just for the Salam proposal and experimental result.  Anyone have access to 1960s Physics Letters ?  — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The "we didn't find any magnetic photons" paper seems legitimate, though it seems that if they were serious about the experiment they'd have alternated on/off measurements with the photomultiplier instead of taking a batch of "on" and a batch of "off", to reduce the heating problem. They cited enough other papers that the concept itself doesn't seem "total whack", though the article could stand to be rewritten with many more references. I'd file this under :Category:Obsolete scientific theories as an idea that was considered in the second half of the 20th century, but ruled out. Disclaimer: I'm in engineering, not physics, so it's quite possible that I'm missing something. --Christopher Thomas 04:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you review my edit history as of right now, you will see that I just removed several dozen links wherein Rainer W. Kühne is seen to be a time travel expert, an expert in the location of Atlantis, an expert in the Pioneer 10 anomoly, and an associate of famous physicists who died when he was twelve years old. Oh, and cold fusion too. I'm deleting the whole kit-n-kaboodle for now. linas 04:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Magnetic photon]] 

message: I'm looking for input about a nomenclature issue.  See Talk:Exergy#B or ψ or Ξ or X?.  On the Second law of thermodynamics page, exergy is X.  I thought I'd seek some input from physicists before flipping it over to B.  Please discuss this on the Talk:Exergy page. Plenty of work to do there too if there's a systems ecologist/engineer/physicist around. Flying Jazz 06:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomenclature for available useful work ([[Exergy]])

message: This AFD could use some qualified eyes on it. Thanks. - Motor (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article as-written is near-gibberish (looks like a mangled copy of press release text). The effect it describes _might_ be real, but is insufficiently sourced in the article. --Christopher Thomas 16:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've attempted to rewrite/summarize the article, so that it can be assessed on its technical merits or lack thereof, rather than prose style. Still needs expert attention and verification.--Christopher Thomas 17:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Good. Keep. The original version was gibberish. I tweaked the intro slightly to mention perovskite again, etc.linas 14:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photon induced electric field poling|Photon induced electric field poling]]