Talk:Antony Garrett Lisi

message: I've just reverted an edit for the same reason as given on An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything (talk). In addition, this edit here appears to be a mere duplication, which should be avoided. If there would be more about Lisi the person, then it should be added here; but the new article appears more to be about the general realm of the theory, and therefore would not belong here. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert from 12 Feb 2008

message: Maybe one should add some of the initially rather enthusiastic comments of  Lee Smolin and the less encouraging ones of  Jacques Distler? Discrepancy (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lisi's theory of everything based on E8

message: Hi. There's been a lot written about Garrett, so I'm going to add a "Chronology" like the one in An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything to keep track of them. Then these sources can be used to spruce up the article.SherryNugil (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronology of biographical articles and interviews

message: There seems to be a lot of interest and material in the media on Garrett's life story, particularly the balance between his physics research and adventure sports. I'm going to attempt a rewrite that uses these media sources to flesh out his biography, while incorporating some of the existing material. Also, I think less can be said about the theory here, since that's covered on the theory page.SherryNugil (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Biography and rewrite

message: I'm a little concerned about this line 'The controversy surrounding his theory appears to match the "period of revolutionary science" described in Thomas Kuhn's seminal work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.'  It does not seem to be neutral as it seems to be implying that Lisi's work is starting a paradigm shift.  There is also nothing to back up this statement-- not all controversy matches the "period of revolutionary science." 129.82.97.149 (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Kuhn Reference

message: The section about adventure sports is totally unnecessary not so serious.
:There's a lot here about AGL's personal tastes and activities - it resembles a fan page. I suggest it be toned down. Kasyapa (talk)Kasyapa  —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to reiterate this. While the biography needs to exist, not every move and address of his every home is really encyclopedic. 72.129.92.179 (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that this major rewrite by 76.200.188.75 is introducing their opinion, making a hash of the article, and cutting out many sources. Their edits include unsourced opinions such as "the scientific community has generally rejected E8 theory," as well as throwing out more recent biographic material and references from Symmetry, Outside, Men's Journal, The New Yorker, Center for Science Writings, O'Reilly, SEED, Financial Times, Telegraph, etc., as if the Scientific American article of March 1, 2008 was the last word. The bot was right, this looks like vandalism. The article should accurately reflect the content of these sources, which are about more than physics.66.8.159.57 (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am one of Garrett's fans, but I am doing the best I can to maintain a neutral tone, only include material from verifiable sources, and keep the content of the article in agreement with those sources. I'm making more edits to tone down the language and make the article more encyclopedic, and will ask Kasyapa if it meets his or her approval. --SherryNugil (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree that the current bio has far too much info and reads like a fan page. Can you find another article on Wikipedia where every conference or every news reference to an academic is listed? I am going to cut down on some of the non-relevant/non-notable parts of the bio (who cares that he went heliskiing in Alaska in April? Was this an encyclopedia worthy event?) --DFRussia (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

text: The "Personal articles and interviews" section is completely pointless. I am working on removing it, but since the reference tags are used elsewhere it takes time to move them up into the text. --DFRussia (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal details

message: Isn't calling this person a theoretical physicist a bit generous?
On a somewhat related note, this page is strangely long considering this person hasn't actually done anything, and his only claim to notability is a paper on arXiv.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.149.143 (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: He can be called a theoretical physicist because of his degree, and because of what he is famous for (i.e. posting a paper on the ArXiv about theoretical physics and surfing). Although having a paper on the ArXiv is not reason enough to be notable, the wide amount of media coverage Lisi generated makes him notable. However, the article should really make it clear that the reason Lisi is notable is because of the media attention... I definitely agree that the article is far too long and has a lot of irrelevant text. --DFRussia (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theoretical Physicist? 

message: Another Lisi paper has surfaced.
An Explicit Embedding of Gravity and the Standard Model in E8 at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1006/1006.4908v1.pdf
I'm not touching the article until I've had time to read & digest both papers. Hotfeba (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Explicit Embedding of Gravity and the Standard Model in E8 

message: I'm surprised that there isn't a substantial "Criticism" section. Thinkers like Lisi are natural targets for academic professionals. After all, no one can try to usurp the priesthood's position without being punished and labelled a "crank."Lestrade (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You'd be surprised how little of a fuck was given. Mostly a media-ho-bag, but there you go.137.205.183.109 (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: Greetings, Great going on the assembly of E8, I'd like to see your face when the LHC provides proof of the proposal that you've posited by producing the particles that you've promised!
If it is an error it is one of substitution. My explanations are unneeded as you will know sooner than immediately the result. So here goes: "A Geometric T. O. E." - Section 3 - 'DIFFERENT CHARGES FOR DIFFERENT FORCES' - paragraph 3: "Exactly half of ... " - and then my proofreader jammed on the third sentence / 16th word 'neutrino' - that is to say that the sentence seems to read better, for two reasons, when neutrino is replaced with 'electron' - as in "... the left-handed up quark and {[electron]} having weak charge +1/2. and the left-handed down quark and electron having weak charge -1/2." & 2) Neutrinos haven't a charge.  Yea, or ... yea? Aloha ~ Betaclamp (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Sci Am Dec 2010 E8 article typo? 

message: This page is strange. There is a pretty big push from some people embracing Lisi's theory even tho so far it has no prediction and it has produced no important results. Most of the techniques used by the theory are all well known in physics and used in models that actually work. The remaining techniques are instead dubious because they seem at the least not working if not even wrong.
Wikipedia should not support somebody's theory of the universe, but only the actual results, that so far are very few. 
Physics isn't a matter of sides, so if this theory is ultimately right or wrong it will become clear to everybody as soon as we have more technological progress ot experimental results from LHC, Fermilab or other experiment like neutrino or dark matter experiments.
If this theory has raised little interest amongst physicists it's certainly not because they hate the theory, it's just that there is many many theories that need work and actually mimic our world much better.
Allowing people to support this idea in a partisan line kind of approach we are disfavoring the main purpose of wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.28.8.212 (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science isn't just a discussion between fans, journalists and popular articles 

message: I have highlighted this article for general revision with a Fanpov template.
Lisi is a living researcher and his biography should be short, brief, neutral and do not include details about his "sport adventures" for he is no professional sport player or whatsoever. The length of this article compared to other biographies of well-known researchers is ridiculous (e.g. David Deutsch, Andrew Wiles, Peter Shor, Scott Aaronson). More than a criticism section, what we need is a shorter article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrapito (talk • contribs) 20:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has turned into a Fan Page 

message: By policy of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE I will start shortening this page leaving all the important information. A list of interview to Lisi is certainly undue following the policies above. If we have to list each interview to each famous physicist on the planet then WP would become a search engine instead of an encyclopedia. 
I will leave the most important interviews listed in the references of the page. But it's ridiculous, and incompatible to wikipedia's standards and policies to have a page on Garrett Lisi longer than physicists who won Nobel Prizes. The current version has a clear POV weight.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.128.58 (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Undue 

message: This guy, for the world of research, is a complete nothingness. He is not worthwhile a Wikipedia article at all. This bio appears here just as an aside of string war and because this guy come out with a wrong theory, unpublished as happens to all wrong theories, for a possible unification that got some fuss for a while. We have to keep here these craps while bios of respectable researchers are somewhat ignored or overlooked. It is a kind of shame to see this way to manage science on Wikipedia. In these days, to ascend to fame all you need is to be cited somewhere in the media and get some rumors about. Contents are not the main concern anymore.--Pra1998 (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if 15 mins of fame is all you want, go give a vacuous TEDtalk and blow the editor in chief of Sci Am so they'll do a feature on you. I suspect that you will not find it very satisfying.137.205.183.109 (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Anonymous contributions cannot help here. It is time that some administrator takes the situation over and works out the right action. E.g. a poll for removal. Thanks.--Pra1998 (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I vote that these pages and their chief sockpuppet contributors are removed from wikipedia.  If the articles have any merit, people other than Lisi/Smolin will replace them with better versions.  For instance, Richard Feynman did not edit his own wikipedia page, and yet it is doing quite well, as is Albert Einstein's.  Since Lee Smolin hyped Lisi as the next Einstein, why can't Lisi let others edit his page, like Einstein does?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.167.55 (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Einstein and Feynman were dead when Wikipedia was born. They could not possible edit their articles. I invite you to cite some well alive physicists to support your point. Let me repeat again: Anonymity cannot help, just get in touch with an administrator.--Pra1998 (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

text: The anonymous editors have the same right as everyone else. The important thing is what they say. As far as I understand there is two editors here. 71, and myself. Sometimes I use different IP's but it doesn't mean that what I say isn't correct. I'm not hiding, but there is no reason to back up my statements with a nickname or a real name. The statements are what is important.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.128.58 (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something to think upon 

message: Dear Lisi, dear user:Scientryst, dear user:SherryNugil, being clear that you all follow very closely Lisi's pages on wikipedia (and for the latter two, you edit almost only those), it's probably time to start thinking about policies.
Instead of trying with ridiculous and laughable bullying methods to out editors, you should try to see how you see the world. Was yours a threat by the way? In your google plus blog, dear Lisi, you wrote material that can easily end up in a lawsuit. You should watch your mouth when accusing people of "back-room dealing, deception, and extortion". Do you really think that there is a conspiracy here against you instead of just editors loving physics and trying to simply write the truth about your theory (both good aspects and bad aspects). Why do you think that a NPOV necessarily coincides with your POV?
Specifically, it doesn't matter if the mathematical summary "seemed OK to you". It matters whether or not the material is WP:UNDUE and the weight in presenting it is unbalanced towards your personal POV instead of a N(eutral)POV. Also, given that you amusingly follows all the IPs around here and all their actions, you should probably also recognize that I'm the one that re-included the graphical representation of the algebraic breakdown. Proving you wrong about my intents, other than proving you obsessed about your own page.
You should look into the wikipedia policies about writing your own page, wikipedia is not your personal server or webpage, conflict of interest and all that. There is a lot written that you might find useful. About it, I would like to copy and paste a few sentences from Wikipedia:Autobiography:
Just because you honestly believe you are being neutral doesn't mean you are. Unconscious biases can and do exist, and are a very common cause of the problems with autobiographies—which is why we discourage autobiographies themselves and not just active, deliberate self-promotion. Not only does this affect neutrality but it also affects the verifiability and unoriginal research of the autobiography. One may inadvertently slip things in that one may not think need to be attributable even though they do, due to those very same biases. Even if you can synthesize an autobiography based on only verifiable material that is not original research you may still not be able to synthesize it in a neutral manner.
It is difficult to write neutrally and objectively about oneself (see above about unconscious biases). You should generally let others do the writing.
Contributing material or making suggestions on the article's talk page is considered proper—let independent editors write it into the article itself or approve it if you still want to make the changes yourself.
In clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself. So, you can revert vandalism; but of course it has to be simple, obvious vandalism and not a content dispute [...] Be prepared that if the fact has different interpretations, others will edit it.
So, Garrett, trust a little more the intent of others that aren't necessarily evil just because don't share your vision about yourself or your theory. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dear Garrett Lisi, Wikipedia is not the place where to directly describe your own theory or your own person. 

message: The next person who calls for this article  (or the Exceptionally Simple article) to be deleted will be brought to WP:ANI, and I will request that you/your IP/an IP range be blocked. The next person who accuses someone else of sockpuppetry here (instead of at WP:SPI with evidence in the form of diffs) will be taken to ANI and I will request you be blocked. The next person who accuses someone else of being a principle in the dispute (i.e., of being Lisi, or Smolin, or Distler, or a part of an off-wiki campaign) here (instead of at WP:COIN or at WP:DRN) will be taken to ANI and I will request that you be blocked.
There is no policy based reason to delete this article. Lisi has received more than enough discussion in reliable sources to meet WP:N, and thus an article on him is appropriate. We don't say "Oh, he's a bad scientist, and good scientists don't have articles, so Lisi shouldn't have an article." All we do is ask, "Has this person been discussed in detail in multiple, independent, reliable sources?"  Since the answer is yes, an article (so long as it is neutral, well-sourced, etc.) will be here. Even if tomorrow an international panel of physics experts got together and wrote a formal paper that said that Lisi is a bad scientist whose theories are all worthless, we'd still have an article on him.  Yes, the article needs to accurately reflect Lisi's views and the views of others on him (i.e., it may well be that the article is mostly negative points about Lisi, if that matches the prevailing scientific opinion, though of course we'll include the positive comments from the non-scientific sources as well, along with any positive sources within the scientific community.
But all of the accusations are disruptive, and making it impossible to actually discuss what to do with the article. If anyone has serious accusations backed up by appropriate evidence, take it to the appropriate noticeboard for administrative action (if you don't know what that is, ask me on my talk page). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning 

message: Thanks for fixing my mistake, Torumen. I was too sloppy and quick, not checking to see if that broke any of the other references.  Thanks for moving those into the proper place in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Qwyrxian removed section with comment "Completely inappropriate for a WP article--if there is useful info in those interviews, include it in the article in prose, but a list of his interviews has no business here (borderline SPAM", but this broke some 15 named reference links. I reverted temporarily, moved the named references to the first occurrence, and moved the chronological sections below, in case anyone would like to integrate any of the contents into the article prose, as Qwyrxian suggests. Any named refs below already have (moved) named links in the article as-is. Happy editing! Tom Ruen (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interviews 

message: I came to my own conclusion that this page is creating a lot of problems because of the excess of details. I think that it's possible to shorten the page and make it more readable. I believe that giving Lisi his credit and mentioning clearly some limitations and criticism can be done without having to discuss about very very advanced math and physics. For example, the fact that the theory isn't accepted and is work in progress because incomplete can certainly be stated without looking offensive or dismissive of Lisi, please, help me find the best phrasing. 
It must be obvious to any reasonable person that such information is much more relevant in the lede than saying that Lisi is a supporter of balance in life, why would such a comment even be in the lede in the first place?
If we look at the physics side, the E8 stuff has had a page as long as QCD and longer than the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa_matrix page. Lisi's page before cutting the interviews was longer than Murray Gell-Mann. And those are respectively a fundamental discovery of the last 50 years and a Nobel Laureate! 
Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide Maskawa also are Nobel Laureates and their pages are shorter. Evaluating the importance of scientific papers using Google's PageRank algorithm identifies Nicola Cabibbo's paper "Unitary symmetry and leptonic decays" as the top ranked out of 353,268 articles published by the American Physical Society since 1893 in journals such as Physical Review Letters. The same research shows that most of the authors of the top-ranked papers are also Nobel Prize winners. And Cabibbo's page is shorter than Lisi's.
Even if now Lisi is a TV person, SherryNugil's version of Lisi's page was as long as Larry King's.
Now, do we realize that it must be possible to write a page about Lisi and this E8 stuff in a acceptable size, given that so far the theory hasn't accomplished a whole lot compared to the gentlemen above?
The more we want to explain the tiny details the further away we go from the purpose of having such a page on wikipedia. This page should be honest and NPOV, but at the same time it should not require edit wars and an amount of effort that is minor than mainstream working theories. I'm confident that we can find a compromise if *everybody* stops trying to defend or change even the smallest sentence to make Lisi look better or worse. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article length - try to be constructive, please 

message: Qwyrxian, I think you are incorrect that the theory "hasn't been widely accepted in any way." Lisi has published his recent work, alone and with others. His papers have some positive citations. He's been giving talks at universities. His theory even inspired a mathematical physics conference. It is true that Lisi and his theory have gotten much more attention in the popular scientific press than is warranted by citations alone, but it's wrong to describe this as a theory that the scientific community has not accepted at all. It has been accepted as an incomplete theory with some problems typical of such unification efforts. Clarifying that this hasn't been widely accepted as a complete theory of everything is reasonable, but leaving it as it is, implying that Lisi's scientific work hasn't been accepted at all, isn't right.-Scientryst (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you tell us how many times the paper has been cited in Web of Science? As above, Google Scholar cites are very slender. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Slender, yes, GS currently gives 64. Non existant? No.-Scientryst (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you will find it is 46 cites, not 64 in Google Scholar. A very small value compared with some papers cited in this field. For example search for Michael Duff (physicist); his papers have vastly more. What are Lisi's cites in Web of Science? Xxanthippe (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

text: But not widely accepted? Yes. Note that the lead doesn't say "Completely debunked". It says, "not widely accepted". This described exactly the situation of a scientist who has been only rarely cited, and who hasn't published many high profile works. I'm fixing the phrase again, and unless you can show a consensus for your version, please don't re-add, because the prima facie evidence speaks clearly against your position. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the most charitable interpretation. The most straightforward interpretation of "not widely accepted by the scientific community" is that the theory is not been widely accepted by other scientists as a work of science. And that is false. Whether the theory is right or wrong, and even whether other scientists think it is right or wrong, it is a scientific work. To say it is not widely accepted by the scientific community is to say it has been rejected as not being science. And if that is not what is being implied (and it should not be, because that would be false) then we should clarify that it has not been widely accepted as a complete and true theory of everything. What is your reason for not accepting the clarification? What, precisely, do you think is made incorrect by adding "as a theory of everything"? Do you honestly think Lisi's work has not been widely accepted as a (probably wrong) work of science?-Scientryst (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit implies that, in other ways, the theory is accepted.  But, as far as anyone has been able to prove, it has only a very small acceptance, if any at all, in mainstream science.  Your claim that people don't think it's science is, well, I can't think of a civil way to put it.  If I say, "I don't accept string theory," that doesn't mean I think string theory isn't science, but simply that I think it's incorrect/wrong/insufficient science.  As always, though, should consensus show that my interpretation of this sentence is wrong, I will bow to that position.  Qwyrxian (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If the line in the lede was "incomplete and not widely accepted," then I might agree with you. But the line now is "incomplete and not widely accepted by the scientific community," which sounds, to me, like scientists don't think it's science! My edit is intended to clarify that it is accepted in the scientific community as a work of science, but not as a complete and correct theory of everything. The way it is written now would be as if one said "the scientific community does not accept string theory," implying it is not acceptable as a work of science. Does that make sense?-Scientryst (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

text: I have hundreds of citations and I give talks to international conferences. Can I have a wikipedia article for me and my favourite theory as happened to this guy?--Pra1998 (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If your favorite theory is MDT, maybe you can.-Scientryst (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I can't until I have given a contribution to the community that is widely accepted. So, this article should be simply removed. There is plenty of physicists and mathematicians with hundreds of publications and a lot of citations whose work is not recognized in wikipedia while this guy has such an article. I think that this is unacceptable. There has been a similar dispute here and published material was removed even if published in respectable journals and this is not the case for the person in this article. I think that rules should be the same for everybody and, until Lisi's work is not widely accepted, we have to treat him as anybody else.--Pra1998 (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

text: All that is fascinating, but useless for the article, because Smolin's blog does not meet WP:RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Given the intro should only summarize the contents, Ohnoitsjamie's adjustment (a mixed reception) was an honest attempt from the statement below, "Lisi's theory has been applauded but also criticized in the scientific community." So the intro/body seem in contradiction. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  In fact, I'm assuming good faith. The problem is that the statement you mention is one statement that refers to a few years ago and refers to few people that talked about it with mixed responses, certainly not to the whole scientific community. There is a pretty big number of sources that can clearly be cited to use the sentence "not widely accepted". It is just a waste of time to really be talking about this, since it is obvious and undeniable that the theory isn't widely accepted. If the body seems in contradiction with the lede, then we need to recover some of the changes attempted before (when User:SherryNugil was 'defending' the page). Those changes should make clear that the theory currently doesn't even reproduce the known fermions, and this by definition can't be a theory widely accepted since it doesn't even explain the particles we know and that lots of other models instead include successfully. ~GT~ (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory status in the lede 

message: There is no way it will be possible to say that the theory has had mixed reception from the scientific community, compared to 'is not widely accepted'. First, not even string theory or loop quantum gravity are accepted theories, and they are accepted ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more than Lisi's theory. Secondly, we have had plenty of discussions about it, and keeping reverting will bring you to infrage the 3RR. There is no hope to prove with any reliable source that Lisi's theory is not "not widely accepted", simply because it is not widely accepted, period. This, of course, is different from saying that the theory is garbage. We aren't saying that, we are saying the simple documented truth, that the theory simply hasn't been widely accepted by the scientific community. Before you take any other action on it I invite you explicitly to read the last three-four months of discussion pages here and in the theory's page. If you are in good faith like I assume you will find plenty of answers in the discussions. ~GT~ (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the intro should only summarize the contents, Ohnoitsjamie's adjustment (a mixed reception) was an honest attempt from the statement below, "Lisi's theory has been applauded but also criticized in the scientific community." So the intro/body seem in contradiction. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  In fact, I'm assuming good faith. The problem is that the statement you mention is one statement that refers to a few years ago and refers to few people that talked about it with mixed responses, certainly not to the whole scientific community. There is a pretty big number of sources that can clearly be cited to use the sentence "not widely accepted". It is just a waste of time to really be talking about this, since it is obvious and undeniable that the theory isn't widely accepted. If the body seems in contradiction with the lede, then we need to recover some of the changes attempted before (when User:SherryNugil was 'defending' the page). Those changes should make clear that the theory currently doesn't even reproduce the known fermions, and this by definition can't be a theory widely accepted since it doesn't even explain the particles we know and that lots of other models instead include successfully. ~GT~ (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: To Ohnoitsjamie

message: The article reads like a vanity page edited by Lisi himself or persons very close to him. It is replete with earnestly footnoted howlers such as, "While living in a customized van with his girlfriend, Crystal Baranyk, Lisi taught physics classes at University of Hawaii – Maui College.[9]"
I hope people here will realize that leaving the article up in its present form is the most painful embarrassment to the subject that one could conceive of. So, please don't change a single thing :) 82.113.106.201 (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Second that!137.205.183.109 (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comical 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Antony Garrett Lisi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828221732/http://outside.away.com:80/outside/culture/200805/garrett-lisi-1.html to http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/200805/garrett-lisi-1.html
*Added  tag to http://sciencepond.com/garrettlisi/statuses/2533216255
*Added  tag to http://www.stevens.edu/csw/cgi-bin/blogs/csw/?p=187
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified