User talk:Linas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
(Jan-May 2005) (May-June 2005) (June-Aug 2005) (Sept-Oct 2005) (Nov-Dec 2005) (Dec-Jan 2006) (Jan-Mar 2006) (Mar-May 2006) (May-July 2006) (July-Aug 2006) (Aug-Oct 2006)

[edit] "Was this reviewed?"

On Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) you wrote:

... much of the burden of revieweing edits could be improved with better tools. For example, I would love to know if one of my trusted collegues has already reviewed the same edit I'm reviewing. This would greatly reduce my review burden, and allow me to monitor many, many, many more articles. linas 23:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Fantastic idea. Do you know whether there is some ongoing discussion on such things? (Feel free to reply here; I'm watching this page.) — Nowhither 18:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I suspect there is, but I know not where. I have noticed that the wikimedia software made an attempt at implementing something like this, but it was either a hack or mis-designed or incomplete. You can see this on newer wikimedia sites, for example [1]. If you look at edit histories, you'll see red exclamation marks denoting unreviewed pages. But you'll also notice that any sockpuppet can reset them, ... so it really doesn't work correctly. So it seems someone thought about it, but I don't know what the status is, or where its going, or who is doing it. You'll have to look up the wikimedia folks.

Anyway, what I really want is actually fancier than what I wrote at the village pump, but I thought I'd keep it simple. I'd happily engage in a conversation with the wikimedia developers if you can locate them. linas 04:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

To clarify: This site runs the latest version of the wikimedia software, but the review system is turned off because it hurts performance. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, it could be written as a fancy SQL query, and that would make the lights dim. Is this MySQL or Postgres? I'm guessing there are ways to make this more efficient, by using status bits of various kinds, requiring table redesigns. No matter, I didn't like the way the red exclamation marks worked anyway; they weren't really useful. linas 14:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The WikiMedia sites are using MySQL. I was wrong by the way: the feature that you described is called "RC patrol", it's described on m:Help:Patrolled edit, and it seems that it was turned off because anybody could mark an edit as patrolled (as you already noticed, see also this mail and replies). I was confusing it with the m:Article validation feature, which is a more elaborate scheme that is disabled for performance reasons. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for the links, I'll have to prowl around there a bit. My other bit of patrol paranoia is that it is easy to review only the most recent change; thus a "bad edit" could be hidden in the history and overlooked. Thus, I'd prefer to see *all* changes since I last looked. linas 04:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trouble on Afshar experiment page ...again!

Dear Linas, Michael C. Price is ignoring talk page discussions and is being extremely unhelpful in ensuring the content of the article is made objective. He insists his ideas on "decoherence" to be included in the "critics" section of the article without having explain explicitly what relevance it has to my experiment, in contrast to all the other cited critics who have gone to the trouble of writing papers on the topic. A quick look at the conversation below copied from the article's talk page should give you a better understanding of the emotional animosity involved. I have asked for the talk page to be archived and start a new page on the issue of decoeherence and its relevance, but to no avail. Maybe you can help? P.S. My paper has been accepted in a prestigious peer-reviewed journal and will appear soon. (I can give you more specific information and testimonials from notable physicists on the importance of the paper only by means of e-mail as embargo does not allow me to disclose publicly which journal it is.) So all I am asking is that Michael write a paper like all the other critics and then post it in the critics section. I also think my rebuttals should be made available in the article to the same extent the critics' arguments are reflected. Thanks for your help.-- Prof. Afshar 03:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Writing a critique of the Afshar experiment from a decoherence point of view is a very good idea. Why don't you write such? I have no issue with that at all. In the meantime your pathetic passage fails to do anything like that, or point to anything else that does. And even when you try a simple demo of relevance you end up asking yourself if decoherence is the appropriate tool - well maybe it isn't - so why don't you work that out first before imagining it might be. Perhaps Afshar's definition of complementarity is flawed - well why don't you have think about that for a little bit and put together a critique along those lines. Until some sort of decoherence critique exists there isn't anything for Afshar to necessarily address. If you want him to address general decoherence I hardly think the article is the right context for "asking" him. And you ask the question: - what does decoherency say about complementarity in the Afshar Experiment. Currently nothing. So get to work. Mr Price. CARL LOOPER

Mr looper asked me to explain the relevance of decoherence on the talk page, I complied and all we get is more ignorant abuse from him. Posing a Socratic question is interpreted as a sign of stupidity by Mr Looper, which says a lot about himself. I shall have to be blunt, I see. Afshar does not understand complementarity and Afshar's experiment does not violate complementarity. There are no peer-review sources that support Afshar's claims. Afshar demonstrates a failure to grasp undergraduate physics (e.g. conservation of momentum). Afshar presents us with an unending stream of errors: he can't even get his facts straight about what he has previously said on the talk page and his weblogs, has paranoid delusions about other people tryig to block inclusion of references into the article (references that don't actually support Afshar's claims of overthrowing complementariry (e.g. O'Hara's article)), along with pretending (at times) that he only contributes to the talk page and never the article. Afshar consistently misrepresents or fails to understand sources that contradict his claim (e.g. his claims of "intermediate levels of interference visibility"), at the same time as abusing anyone who offers a scientific objection to his experiment. Why is Mr Looper so opposed to a bit of balance in an article that peddles such unsourced, pseudoscientific quackery? The only reason why more people don't speak against Afshar's interpretation of QM here -- apart from the fact that it is so stupid as to hardly merit a response -- is that they get frustrated at his obdurate stupidity and refusal to address issues and leave (have a look back at the entire history of the talk page, if you don't believe me). I appreciate that is may be difficult for some people, such as Mr Looper, to grasp the relevance of decoherence to the issue, but is not really my problem. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Michael, I'm speechless! Thank you kindly for your highly intelligent and relevant response above. I don't know how much more graciously you would react once you see the paper published. Congratulations, simply superb...-- Prof. Afshar 21:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Michael's brilliant elucidation of decoherency is a wonder to behold. CL

Since you have such problems following the subject and can't engage on the talk page I shall expand the critique section. I have tried to be concise, polite and subtle in the critique section: clearly a waste of time. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have trouble following your clear, polite and concise diatribes on Afshar. But I do look forward to a clear, polite and concise critique of the experiment. And you'll find I'll be far more supportive if and when that occurs. CL.

I'll take a look.linas 14:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Linas, two things: (1) Why did you remove the sentence regarding my rebuttals and the links for it? If my critics are allowed to have their views reflected in the article, at the very least you should mention that I have responded to them and provide the link. (2) The decoherence, and the Schrodinger equation issue has not been addressed by Michael Price. He needs to explain why they are criticisms of the experiment and its interpretation, and the best way to do that is by writing a paper or two on the topic. Until then these "critiques" should be removed. Even AFTER Michael writes the paper(s), my response should be mentioned. As way of doing this, I am willing to start a new talk page on the issue of addressing Michael's views on decoherence and the Schrodinger equation, given an admin. like you monitors the discussion and makes sure it does not descend to the type of insults dished out by Michael. Best regards. -- Prof. Afshar 16:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, now fixed. I was skimming a bit too quick. Its not clear to me if your rebuttals address the specific issues brough up by Motl, Drezet, etc. If they do, then links should be added to the specific bullets listingthat critic. linas 18:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Linas, it seems that Michael Price is itching for a bit of administrative discipline, as he reverted your changes again. If you are an administrator please act accordingly, otherwise, please let me know how this problem can be dealt with once and for all. Best regards.-- Prof. Afshar 22:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted Linas's deletion because (1) there was no discussion beforehand (2) Linas's opinion that it was "casual and handwaving" is (2a) not a valid reason for deleting verifiably sourced material. If correct then the solution is to "improve not delete" and (2b) this is an old claim Linas made that was settled long ago (3) Linas has previously suggested that the entire article be rewritten from a decoherence POV, so why he should now delete a more modest version of this suggestion, amongst others, seems inconsistent. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Micheal, you are not being helpful. Sometimes improvement comes through deletion. There has been a lot of material that has been deleted from that article, and deleting more won't hurt. I'm sorry I suggested pursuing decoherence -- it would indeed be an interestting thing to do, but in this case, it constitutes "original research", and is inappropriate for this article. linas 03:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have addressed the OR claim (which was also settled between us long ago) on the talk page here. Your claim that more deletion won't hurt is highly subjective and I disagree. Please do me the curtesy of debating the issue at the talk page first before deleting. If you don't have the time to debate, fair enough, but then I don't think you have the right to delete either. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Micheal, the text I deleted contained several flavours of logical fallacies. Its not only OR, but its not even logically coherent. This is not something we should even be debating. Step back, and look at this from the distance. linas 15:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the corrections. We shall have to disagree about the issue of OR. I assure I do reflect on whether this is worth pursuing and I shall continue to reflect: for the moment I have decided to continue. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] November Esperanza Newsletter

Program Feature: Admin Coaching (needs coaches!) Admin Coaching needs coaches!!! If you are an administrator, or even a generally experienced user, do consider signing up to be a coach. Admin Coaching, now being coordinated by HighwayCello, is a program for people who want help learning some of the more subtle aspects of Wikipedia policy and culture. People are matched with experienced users who are willing to offer coaching. The program is designed for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins. What's New? The Tutorial Drive is a new Esperanza program! In an effort to make complicated processes on Wikipedia easier for everyone, Esperanza working to create and compile a list of tutorials about processes here on Wikipedia. Consider writing one! A discussion on how Esperanza relates to the encyclopedia has been started; please add your thoughts. Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.

The last AC meeting (full log) The list of proposed programs has been updated, with some proposals being archived. There is now a new program: the Tutorial Drive! Consider writing a tutorial on something you are good at doing on Wikipedia. The suggestion of adding a cohesive look to all the Esperanza pages is being considered; join the discussion if you are interested! In order to make a useful interlanguage welcome template, those involved in translation projects will be asked what English Wikipedia policies are most important and confusing to editors coming from other language Wikipedias. A discussion of Esperanza's role in Wikipedia is being held, with all thoughts of all Esperanzians wanted! Shreshth91 informed everyone that he will be leaving the Esperanza council as life is rather busy; his spot will be filled by the runner up from the last election, HighwayCello. Signed... Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, The Halo, Shreshth91 and HighwayCello 20:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.