User talk:Koeplinger/Archive 1 - 2008-11-10

Welcome!

Hello, Koeplinger, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page about categories of hypernumbers. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Numbers

Hi. I undid some of the categorization you did in this category. For example, real number is already in Category:Real numbers, which is a subcategory of Category:Numbers, as such there is no need for real number to also be in Category:Numbers. Articles in a subcategory should not (most of the time) also be in the parent category, there is a rule about that somewhere. You can reply here if you have comments. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. That's fine, since we currently have the infobox / template about "Number systems in mathematics" ( Template:Numbers ), which directly links to certain pages. I still think that this infobox / template is in need of revision and have put a question out on Category_talk:Numbers. Let's see what feedback may come. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger 15:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that discussion may be better off at Template talk:Numbers as we are discussing the numbers template.

By the way, the consensus now is that template:numbers is too big to be posted on all numbers articles, like real number, etc. People think it belongs only at Number. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good idea; I'll post some updates in the discussion pages of template:Numbers and category:Numbers. I'm still getting familiar with numbers, and I was misled by the amount of information and the template in the category:Numbers and believed that this was a place where some details are being described. I have just now seen the article Number for the first time. Thanks for leading me to the right places. I'm fully fine with getting away with the template, and embed it in Number only. In the brief description of the category:Number we can then simply tell to look at the article for a detailed info on all those references. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger 17:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hypernumber

One suggestion. I wonder if you think it is a good idea to create redirects from Conic sedenion (also Conic sedenions) to hypernumber, as conic sedenions are explained at hypernumber. (And same for the other types of numbers described at hypernumber.) If you think it should be done, one can visit Wikipedia:Redirects to learn about creating redirects. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Done, great idea. I'll do so for conic octonion and conic octonions, too, so I don't always have to write "... from the hypernumbers program...". Thanks again, Jens Koeplinger 17:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Bold

Hello and thanks for the edits over at Clifford algebra. The article clearly needs some refinement in order to better situate its more recent additions. (Also, good show on removing the "Warning:" message. That really bothered me too!) I have just a minor suggestion, though. Before you continue your crusade of unbolding everything in sight, look at the style guidelines here: Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions. To summarize, technical terms should be bold the first time they appear in a scientific (or mathematical) article. (I know, it seems to conflict with the usual style guidelines.) I personally don't feel very strongly about the issue in general. There are some cases where it is definitely helpful when a definition stands out in bold, but too much bold always seems to detract from the readability of an article. Still, I suspect some other editors may begin to take an interest if you do this elsewhere. So please be aware. Thanks again, Silly rabbit 20:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, and thanks for the reference - I may have gotten carried away ... Possibly it was the large amount of bold terms that triggered my editing, since a bare mention of a term doesn't really warrant making it bold :) - I re-checked the page, it it looks as if all important terms that were previously bold are now hotlinked, underwriting their importance, so the article should to the least be a bit better. But it's merely a start, in the quest of making Clifford algebra more accessible to a wider public there's long ways to go ... Thanks again! Jens Koeplinger 01:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

______________________________________

Jens, I disagree as these are allowable "quotes" for discussing the issue of the Theoretical Justification of the claims made by Bearden, which effect the basis of your claims that he is presenting "pseudo-science", which you are clearly on an openly stated crusade against. I don't believe you have the ability to prove or state these opinions at this juncture, since you are not even a PhD yourself and have not take the pains to prove him wrong through any scientific process or even review.

Since you have an openly stated agenda, I am here to make sure you stick to a NPOV. At this point, I EQUALLY suspect the integrity of the arguments made by Bearden and his detractors like your good self and Prebys. I am not impressed by the way Bearden went about his PhD, not the way you are going about suppressing the discussion about the integrity of his science. You curiously have no qualms about discussing the integrity of his character, however. REG FLAGS are flying all over my screen here. I suspect you are not being neutral or fair on this page.

This is my frank and honest humble opinion. So far as the accepted consensus information contained on this subject in Wikipedia (specifically in relation to 2nd law of thermodynamics) suggests that you may again be in error (reference your talk page on theories you initially suspected psuedo-science by Charles Musè an admitted friend of aliens) of your unprovable contention that these people are pseudo-scientists. Clearly your initial judgments have a proven (self-admitted) tendency towards error. So why should I be moved by them, and why should you post them?

Why you, a person who claims no interest whatsoever in Bearden's work, would take all this time and effort to discredit and suppress an open debate on his biography is spurious in the very least. Truly no offense is intended here. But neither am I obliged to turn a blind eye to what I am seeing, or mute my observations. I feel obliged to do so for the sake of maintaining the NPOV of this encyclopedia. I feel your time would be better spent proving your claims and personal judgments against Bearden BEFORE posting them here (in the Wiki and/or talk page for Bearden).

Now, if you want to remove the quotes of Bearden that serve the discussion on the matter of your claim of his propagation of psuedo-science, then remove all the references to his propagating psuedo-science. Otherwise defend your claims by defeating his claims point-for-point. I am all for discrediting psuedo-science. I am not at all defending or attacking Bearden. Prove he is a pseudo-scientist and I will personally begin his biography with those very words.

Neither am I inordinately impressed by any degree, but by well meaning and reasonable statements (which I stick to without the need to make blatant self-serving references to my advanced degrees; which is why you will never see me do so...let my statements swim or sink on their own merit).

It is funny that you make the statement that "Wiki is not a discussion board" on a page titled "Discussion" (which exists on every Wiki page, as we all know). You are trying to stifle a legitimate discussion on relevant topics concerning the validity of a living person's biography, which is a very sensitive matter. I believe Bearden (and even you) deserve more consideration than that. I would do the same for you if you hypothetically came under fire as a RWA right wind authoritarian scientist with an atheistic elitist agenda (not that you are). I wouldn't let someone flagrantly discredit and bury you and the potential value of your work,which may hold great value to the world. So don't mistake me as your enemy or the enemy of Wiki and science. I am just really neutral and have a great aversion for BS and high handedness.

How is moving a discussion on Bearden's degree from an irrelevant section on theoretical justification to the relevant section titled "Degree Mill" considered "disruptive"? Am I just supposed to swallow that one? Well, I disagree with you. I did not change the sequence of comments made in that discussion, I just put them in their proper place like any good editor would do. And where do I discuss my original research?

You say "Wiki is a reference to notable material", and what is more notable in the discussion of your claims of "pseudo-science" against a scientist other than his scientific claims (the material i posted that you say "needs to be quickly removed")? I feel you are disturbing the discussion on the debate of Bearden's credibility as a scientist and I request you to immediate cease and desist from making such obstructive demands that will not be heeded.

Finally, I suggest that you need to chill out (and I will follow my own advice by not trying to suppress your contributions or make baseless claims against you either). Fair? --Theoversightcommittee (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I only respond to this: "Why you, a person who claims no interest whatsoever in Bearden's work, would take all this time and effort ..." - Mr Bearden claims that millions of people are dieing, and researchers are putting themselves at risk of murder, because Mr Bearden does not have $11 mio in funding. That is alarming to me, and is my motivation for my purely editorial interest in the Wikipedia article on Mr Bearden. Koeplinger (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Exceptionally complicated hoopla about everything?

Hello Koeplinger, could you help with the arbitration of recent edits to An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything, perhaps by issuing a WP:RFC or arranging some sort of mediation? Scientryst (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry this got out of hand ... is it not possible to take a deep breath, step back from the article for a short while, possibly even let something "bad" stand there for a day or two? Maybe someone else will be encouraged to edit; I'm sure there are many people following the debate. There's a good chance that a bit of time may help everyone here. Someone else may want to take ownership of one or the other passage, and try to make it better. --- But I'll check a bit more closely on the weekend. Good luck! Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. I inserted a RfC, and will take your advice. Scientryst (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)