User talk:Slicky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Ubuntu Linux 2 Rachel Corrie 3 Certainty Principle listed as an article for deletion 4 Removing AfD tags 5 Your RFA 6 RESOLFT 7 Einstein edits 8 Edits to microscope 9 Theory of everything and Burkhard Heim 10 RfA thanks from Petros471 11 TENOM microscopy 12 A little bit of 'Overlooked' I trust 13 Microscopy in science 14 Thestic evolution and personal attacks 15 Scientific "fact" 16 What 17 What? 18 gavaity board 19 Your user page 20 Today's featured article

[edit] Ubuntu Linux

Why did you simply remove the information regarding the calendar on Ubuntu Linux? It would make more sense to have moved it into a trivia section if that is what you think. Personally I disagree so will be restoring it and my reasons placed on the talk page. Also, please sign your comments by using ~~~~ at the end of your comment. Also, please place new comments at the bottom of talk pages and not the top as it causes problems for archiving of the old chat. Cheers -Localzuk ^(talk) 12:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This had nothing todo with features, as u'll hopefully understand. Features have to be objective. Moreover it can shed a bad light on ubuntu for certain ppl, e.g. parents,... If this were objectivly justified, it would be okay but ain't because it is trivia as they removed the feature. Before that it was more than okay to warn/inform people about this spec. thingy regards..--Slicky 18:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

But the problem is that it *was* a feature - it was why quite a few people tried the OS - to see what the fuss was about. The point is that a unique feature is something that this OS has that others don't - and no others had this app. It does not matter if parents see it negatively, that is not the purpose of wikipedia (see WP:NOT). Maybe it could be moved to an 'history' section. It is not trivia, however, as it is a major point with the OS to be more 'human' focussed. -Localzuk ^(talk) 18:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Corrie

Slicky, can I ask how you know the cartoon is public domain, and where you got it from? Without a source, the image police will delete it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tagged it fair use in the meantime, but in case that's challenged, it'd be better to have it used under a free licence. I can add that if you can show me evidence that the copyright holder has consented for it to be used in that way. However, we're not allowed to use material where the copyright holder gives only Wikipedia permission to use it. He has to give permission for anyone to use it (commercial and non-commercial), though he can insist on being identified as the copyright holder, author, creator, whatever. You can e-mail me the information using the link on my user page if you prefer. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Certainty Principle listed as an article for deletion

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I've listed the article Certainty Principle for possible deletion as I think it may violate Wikipedia's policy of not including original research. Reading the article, its not clear to me if this work has been published in peer-reviewed journals or otherwise reaches Wikiepdia's standards for scientific research. The discussion period for this deletion proposal is five days, and you can follow it and contribute to it here. Best, Gwernol 16:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply on my talk page. I think you may have a couple of misconceptions. First, you do not need to persuade me to reconsider my opinion. If you read the AfD discussion on the article you'll see I have quite clearly stated that I have no opinion on whether this article should be deleted, I have simply brought it to the attention of the community so they can discuss whether it should be included in Wikipedia or not.

You also say "It has not peer reviewed but that isn't what wikipedia is about", I'm afraid that is simply wrong. Please read Wikipedia's policy on original research. This is one of Wikipedia's five founding principles and is taken seriously by the community. If your article is original research it has its place on the Internet, but it won't be included in Wikipedia.

If you want to contribute to the debate on whether this article should be included in Wikipedia, you need to do it here. I hope this is helpful, Gwernol 16:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the message on my talk page. You say that you believe the Certainty Principle is not original research. Let me quote the opening paragraph of WP:OR "is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source" (emphasis added). Since, as you admit, the notion of Certainty Principle has not been peer-reviewed it fails the Original Research test.

You have repeatedly claimed that I do not know about the uncertainty principle. Apart from being a particularly impressive piece of clairvoyance, this happens not to be true. You also claim I did not read the article before tagging it for AfD. Not only did I read the article, I read the papers linked from it and spent some time looking to see if it was properly cited in the scientific literature. Despite the fact that it has not been peer-reviewed and is not cited, I decided not to vote for its deletion myself, but simply to bring it to the attention of the community. Please don't make unfounded assumptions about what I have or have not done, you are sailing close to WP:NPA, not to mention WP:Civil.

Finally, please contribute to the debate about the article's possible deletion here. Simply replying on my Talk Page won't actually help your cause. Adding your comments to the AfD discussion will help inform others who actually are commenting on its deletion. Thanks, Gwernol 19:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing AfD tags

Hi, please don't remove AfD tags (as the message says). You are of course free to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of layout engines (DOM). Cheers, —Ruud 16:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your RFA

I highly suggest the withdraw of your current Request for adminship. You see, usually editors are more likely to vote support based on thier standards for voting. You current nomination is lacking in quite a few areas and the way it is going right now, it doesn't look like it's going to pass. So it doesn't discourage you, I suggest removing it. Stick around for a few months and keep up the editing and you can become an administrator. Moe ε 16:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, keep up the persistant and good editing and you will make it in no time. So, are you withdrawing? Moe ε 17:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, whenever your ready to close it, I'll help you. If you need me you know where to find me. Moe ε 17:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RESOLFT

As a non specialist, this article makes no sense at all. As it was only created today, rather than tag it for improvement I was wondering whether you could put a sentence or two in at the beginning to explain what it is all about for non-specialist like me. Many thanks. Velela 19:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Einstein edits

I removed the large amount of text you added to the Einstein article. I did this because:

1. Most of it was not encyclopedic in style.
2. Most of it was copy-and-pasted from other articles on the web. Even if these are from NASA, this is generally discouraged, especially for large amounts of narrative text. If you think the NASA article is important, we can add an external link to it.
3. The article is already very long and has a coherent narrative structure. Your pastes almost doubled its length and disrupted the narrative completely.

If you'd like to add content to articles you are of course welcome to, but copying and pasting large amounts of non-encyclopedic text into an article which is already quite large is not a very good practice to get into the habit of. I hope the reason that I removed it makes sense to you. --Fastfission 21:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• It is not encyclopedic content. And removing it was neither "censorship" nor "mindless" -- I think I made it pretty clear why I removed it. Adding it makes the article unreadable and overly long. If you want to draw on it as a source for other edits in the article, please feel free. But you are actually doing more harm to the article than you are good at the moment, and if you are not willing to do the work to add the relevant content and make it work with the article, then you should not expect that others are eager to do it either. --Fastfission 22:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That i do not even dispute and as far as that goes we are on the same page, although any rational person can infer that. However in the long run the article SHOULD get ammended, and as there is no such thing as a work-pool for intermediary content i am convinced this is the best way. Just look at the quality of most new articles and how well researched and objective they are in about a year. However you are doing even more harm by not trying to be more constructive. e.g. the licencing. You're already on the page and it would demand 10 more key presses but instead you favor the way to induce long lasting discussions etc. Should i always contribute A-style content over vital quantity...... well here's an idea: teamplay-each his own.Slicky 00:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Of the two images listed below, one clearly has an incorrect copyright tag and the other one, from what I could tell, had no evidence of being tagged correctly either. Do not lecture me on not deleting things without looking them up first -- I did check on both images and found their copyright information to be incorrect. You are the one who should be checking up on them more thoroughly if you don't want them deleted. It is not my job to make sure that you do not post copyright violations. If you do not understand our image policy, please let me know, and I can direct you to pages which explain it. I spend 90% of my time on Wikipedia adding article content and free images, and only about 10% cleaning up after people who do things in disregard to article content or copyrights, so I don't need you lecturing me on that, either. --Fastfission 22:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• And speaking of which, please stop posting blatant copyright violations, such as at STED microscopy. --Fastfission 23:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's not my job, because you are the one who is supposed to be following the policies. If you add more blatantly copyrighted images or text to Wikipedia, you will get blocked. We take copyrights very seriously around here, and if you cannot learn our policies then you cannot be an editor here. It is really pretty simple -- the bottom of the editor window says pretty clearly that "content must not violate any copyright." Wikipedia is indeed comprehensive, and can only stay that way based on the hard work of people who make new content. If we violate copyright we will get legally in trouble and then there will be no more Wikipedia. So please try to respect this aspect of things. --Fastfission 23:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Slicky, I have to agree with Fastfission here; what you're doing here is blatantly against WP policy, and if you keep it up you're going to get yourself in trouble. You can't just lift large sections of other peoples work and include it without proper credit. GFDL or government works origin doesn't mean we can get away with grabbing without attribution. Please knock it off. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 23:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not that i absolutely resent his ideas. But from my POV it is favourable to have at least a stub even if blatantly copy-pasted (as long as it is only an excerpt) for as long as someone else finally has the time, and in most cases it is me anyways, to write the article in his own terms with further research. e.g. STED microscope is now fixed. So gimme a break. Each and everyone here is entitled to his own opinion, and although you are right in principle, there is now way someone would ever make a law suit for a small excerpt that is equipped with the according link, along with the fact that wikipedia is non-profit etc. Proof me wrong and show me a precedence-case, if not i'll stick to it, in good hope that more people get to more information faster, which is all i am interested in, as i expect the same from wikipedia. Slicky 23:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're going to have to take the five minutes to write at least a single-sentence stub on your own. Cut-and-pasted material is 1) against policy, 2) usually illegal, and 3) something that will get an article deleted on sight. GWH is correct in noting that you're going to get banned if you keep doing this. --Christopher Thomas 23:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, in a way a self-formulated stub one-liner along with relevant links does a way better job at satisfying one's ego anyways ;)Slicky 00:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to microscope

In the future, please use the "show preview" button to check what your edits will do, and use "save page" only when you're finished. The edit history at microscope is extremely difficult to read when the last hundred or so edits are incremental edits from one editor. --Christopher Thomas 23:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, with all due respect, this article took days of research and still only covers some of the microscopes by their names - but at least that's a premise to begin with. I admit i should have used the preview function more often but still, i welcome your input. You can start out here [1]Slicky 00:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theory of everything and Burkhard Heim

Thanks for sharing your concerns on my changes to the TOE page. You're right that some of my phrasing (in the Heim section in particular) was not particularly encyclopedic; I hope that someone can find a better way to touch on those concerns to bring the Heim stuff closer to NPOV (assuming we do decide to keep it).

As for your concerns that I'm showing a bias toward string theory because I work in the field, I do recognize that that is a concern. But setting aside the fact that my work on string theory is a "rival" theory to Heim, I am a specialist in the general area of theoretical physics that Heim Theory is trying to address. If I am to be disqualified from comment on Heim Theory for that reason, then every physicist with relevant training could be disqualified on the same grounds. In the end, I do not consider Heim Theory to be in any way a serious rival or threat to string theory. Even if I did, I would not try to undercut it or to deny it a fair hearing: I want to understand the universe, and if string theory isn't the best way to do that then I really, really want to know!

As a physicist (quite apart from my interest in string theory in particular), I do not believe that Heim Theory is a valid theory of physics. On various talk pages (see Talk:Burkhard Heim and Talk:Heim theory, and all archive pages for each) I have pointed out what look like several major flaws in Heim Theory and points of concern regarding the scientific expertise of its current researchers. As Heim's work is generally not available in the scientific literature, those comments have been based on the limited information about it available on the web. Because of those concerns, I have no confidence that the purported successes of Heim theory are well-founded in physics either.--Steuard 04:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your response on my talk page: You're absolutely right that I don't speak German; I'd love to learn, but I haven't yet found the time. Nevertheless, I have read the material in English put on the web by the "Heim Theory group" (including general remarks and lists of results, but essentially no derivations), and I have found several points for serious concern in those "official" comments. I have also read portions of two or three scientific papers on Heim Theory posted in English, and those have given rise to even more points of serious concern. I have not made any attempt to read Heim's own writings, but it seems quite legitimate to me to form an opinion of the theory on the basis of its attempts at scientific publication and the official public statements of those working on it. (The only websites that I have seen on Heim have been the official heim-theory.com site and the "protosimplex" site which is pretty clearly pro-Heim. I am unaware of any attempts by mainstream physicists to slander Heim; from what I have seen, it would be easy to form negative opinions of his scientific skill based on his work alone.)--Steuard 13:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks from Petros471

For a more general RfA thanks to all voters see User:Petros471/RFA Thanks.

I'm sorry that you've had a bad experience (indirectly) with admins. I will do my very best not to abuse the powers given to me, and I am much more likely to walk away from Wikipedia rather than go on a vandalism spree! If you feel at any time I am carrying out actions that I shouldn't be without discussion please do let me know asap on my talk page. I'll take your vote as a warning to be careful so thanks for the reminder! Petros471 21:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TENOM microscopy

I have marked this as a possible copyvio. It looks like a straight cut and paste job. Cut and paste is not what Wikipedia is about even if it is a short-cut to new articles. Velela 21:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A little bit of 'Overlooked' I trust

re: Talk:Albert_Einstein#.22Iconification_of_Einstein.22 — Eight days is a 'bit' much! <G>

Please note the following change to how you left the line beginning: "PLEASE EDIT THIS SECTION:"...

• PLEASE EDIT THIS SECTION: {{WIP}} — INUSE template (by user: Slicky 00:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)) removed at this time as spotted it in category page. FrankB 04:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Do try to make sure to 'mention it' when applying such templates prominently in the edit summaries.

Such mentions makes it soooooo much faster to track down and see if it's a valid on going matter. If necessary Apply, Save, then do the main edit, etc. Save that, then a minor to remove. We'll all appreciate it!

• Also, have no idea of the context on 'Please Edit this section' -- looks like you did enough for ten people! (And I thought I'd made some long talk posts! <G>)

Best regards, FrankB 04:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Microscopy in science

Are you going to be doing any more editing at Microscopy in science? The article hasn't been touched in a week, and consists only of a previous version of the Microscopy article. If you are going to work on a draft page, I would suggest moving it to a subpage of your own user space, say User:Slicky/Microscopy in science. eaolson 00:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the article to User:Slicky/Microscopy in science. Work on it there to your heart's content, or prod it for deletion if you don't want to bother. eaolson 03:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thestic evolution and personal attacks

I see that you drive around Wikipedia accusing random people of being pseudo-scientists and followers of theistic evolution. See for example the edit about me or another one about Joke137. In future, please try to refrain from this kind of personal attacks, especially as they are 100% wrong. For your information, I'm against any theories based on faith instead of scientific facts. I'm no supporter af theistic evolution (exactly because it has no factual support) but even if I were one, it would not give you right to call me a pseudo-scientist. You need to learn the fundamental difference between difference of opinion and personal attacks. Thank you for trying, Friendly Neighbour 15:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific "fact"

Regarding your edit to Talk:Evolution: I agree, Evolution is not "Just a theory". In fact, if you are referring to Microevolution, it is an extremely well documented theory. However, Macroevolution is now no farther than an unconfirmed hypothesis. I realize as an evolutionist it is hard for you to accept that, but keep in mind that Darwin himself devoted more of his book to the reasons Macroevolution doesn't comport with the facts than he did to the reasons it made 'sense'.

Moreover, you said that Evolution was a "scientific fact". There is no such thing as a scientific fact. In the scientific method, you have hypotheses, theories, and scientific laws. Just because something is a scientific law doesn't mean that it is necessarily true. For instance, Spontaneous generation was once a scientific law, or very near to becoming one. However, we now have several means by which to prove it false, and in fact, it has already been done by Louis Pastuer and many others.

Yes, I would say Macroevolution is very far from the status of scientific law, however, that leads to a VERY long discussion, and I assume you wouldn't want that ;) But even if Macroevolution was scientific law, we still wouldn't call it "fact".

—Ruff ^{Bark away!} 04:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What

Do you think about the schools of thought that suggest (or rather, indicates) that Man is the product of cross-breeding by visitors from other planets? This seems alot more plausable than evolution, which seems to center around theorys that Man is the only intellegent life form in the universe. randazzo56 00:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Don`t be so cynical. There really isn`t one serious scientists who ignores the idea that there is life around us (i can`t say fact because that is the thing....given the sheer size of the universe one could say it is fact but due to the definition of scientific principles there are no scientific facts - this is a rather complicated issue about the current scientific dogma that is universially accepted and thought in universities et al). At last, that other civilizations "planted us" per se is excludable, as we can trace back our genetic (and epigenetic) history objectivly back to the earliest lifeforms from the kindgom of the archae. Moreover there is nothing all too unique about the emergence of life per se, probably it still is constantly emerging but before having a serious chance to evolve it is immediately eaten and digested by the now ubiquitous and way higher microbial species. At last for me it is a matter of fact that the universe is teeming with life (speaking in absolutes but not relative to the occurance of habitable zones), just as it is irrelevant to even waste a thought about contact with them: -a pure wast of ideas and energy because due to the sheer vastness of space and the limiations of space travel this can be savely excluded. See kardashev scale on how to measure a civilization, we are still all the way a Type 0!! civ., now imagine how many of those species out there are civilizations and which of them are type III. And now those civ. III, even if they possess the possibility to get anywhere in space with total disregard of time, the chance that they meet us is still extremely slim. Now all those probabilities combined (you know that independent events are multiplied) gives a chance that is virtually impossible.

There are however extremly good reasons to study the biology of extraterrestrial species, which is a protoscience itself. Such are Exobiology and Astrobiology. One of the reasons is that they tell us what to look for and far more important these sciences also tell us something about us, given that we are just a small number of a possible pool of lifeforms. BUT all life is just a weird property of nature, emerging from the laws of thermodyanmics and quantum mechanics. So the depiction of nanorobots in Sci Fi movies inhabtining other planets is nonsense, the whole idea of nanorobots is false and mostly nurished by people who are engineers and understand little of quantum mechanics/chemistry and physics at large.

At last whilst it is possible for a civilization to build a robot generation that self replicates and self sustains itself with energy, it is impossible for nature itself to make the step to such a robot, due to the thermodynamical twists and heeding of entropy. This is very complicated topic and i would welcome you to study those fields and be as amazed and fascinated by nature as many, many scientists before us.

PS: For me the most complicated task was to get rid of the ignorant picture (for myself) that we decide how nature behaves and what is logical and what isn`t. Because if so then what we are doing isn`t objective science it is religion. Slicky 06:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Yours is the only argument for evolution I have ever accepted. What do you think of the theorys of Eric Von Daniken? I know they are more than thirty years old, but how do you explain say, the pyramids or hyroglifics found in caves, etc? would it have been posible for the Earth to have been visited by alians and who would have hung around long enough to experiment with cross breeding? what about U.F.O.s? Regards randazzo56 18:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, be way more critical about people. Usually they are all about one thing, cash - which is the universal currency just as is ATP the universal energy current in all of life. With that resource you can accomplish your dreams, that can range from doing fundamentalism, to studies or building a forrest or anything else imaginable. If i would write a book (and for me it´s a matter of cirumstance) i would certainly write about aliens and ancient alien civs. One author sold 12 million books with that crap, whilst a textbook is tedious work but there is a whole other motivation behind it. That doesn`t make me a bad person as per se the notion of what is considered good and whatnot itself is a construct of the phenomenon "society". Whatever you believe in in a way it is right - within your reality and due to society itself those believes are somewhat confined so not infinite and people communicate and ultimately group by common interest (except for sexual partners which is driven mostly by evolutionary domains in the brain crucial for survival of the species). U.F.O.`s do exist but they are what the name says unidentified flying objects of which there are many probably thousands of course having an UFO is often rather a matter of wetter baloons and so on, because if the super-power`s stealth technology would be so utterly outdated that the would be constantly dedected they would be pretty soon out of business. Other UFOs are purely fictional and merely created for strategic advantage, regarding stocks and whatnot - PR. Now what you was pondering about is a spacecraft just like ours but from an "alien" civilization. Okay nothing fancy about that, we are a type 0 civ and have spacecrafts and for another civ it would be by hollywoods definition a UFO then. Okay except this is a total impossibility - because even if there were a possibility to punch spacetime - continuum the possibility alone that the civ would come to us in the vastness of space, litterally impossible. Our spacetravel is mostly based on gravitational slingshots and rather passive and using in a way literally the constellation of spacetime curvature, other civs. certainly are more advanced. But so what, i think it is a total waste, A TOTAL waste of time to spend one mere thought about it other than how to write a book or whatnot and give people what they wanna hear whilst you cash off big time. Ever wondered why the greeks did not ponder about aliens! Because it is a societal phenomena conserved from now on for probably thousands and thousands of years - the neurology and psychology of man is the crucial interesting part. Aliens and whatnot are a product of our environment which is in todays world mostly the media et al. African bushman do not know nor ponder about aliens. Again hardly any scientist ignores the -i can`t say fact as i explained to you, so i`ll have to go with Extremely high likelyhood, but between us "fact" wouldn`t be so wrong either- that life exists in many places in the universe, there are some however for which this is not agreeable with their religious views, but that is a whole other matter. Religion is not science, yet in our social world religious scientists are welcomed as well, no-one forces them study astrobiology, etc. and they can still contribute in their fields of interest - if you get me. Besides the study of human psychology is WAY, WAY more interesting than what hollywood, the PR agencies and the media per se comes up with. I mean it is always the same thing, who gives a crap about that anymore. So that`s what is left unexplored for the most part and what really shoulg make you interested. e.g. you know those many propaganda movies where they have some gal say with a smiling face "yes the therapy worked so well, i have five cancer metastases and now i am cured after two weeks of following your therapy" - and she looks left several times because she is construing ad hoc an impromtu answer - common in actors especially the cheap ones. Now this is something you learn in school, sadly many don`t have a good educational environment - starting with their parents.....anyway here a teaser http://www.blifaloo.com/info/lies_eyes.php Another is "99% efficacy in a treatment with hundreds of patients" - why that doesn`t exist requires either a vast pool of knowledge of other studies as comparision or basic human medical knowledge to know this isn`t achievable. Or for you: it is easy to gas people with 99% efficiency, destroy buildings at that rate but not build them all exactly the same or have all die the exacty same time and same way. The requirement here is destruction, very simple one criteria. The standard of a building or a human is maintenance, requires many parts to work and function and be cleaned and whatnot. That doesn`t do it justice of course - but you get the meaning. PS: I know actually that i didn`t change your perspective much in fact hardly affected you at all but the answer as to why this is so lies in human psychology and not some book talking about aliens and other BS enticing us with dreamworlds. I lack the time for further discussion though :) Perhaps i gave you a clue where to really look as far as the "truth is out there goes". Actually the truth, starts with neurology - but psychology suffices. Why does the church lure children in their fold, in fact every sect, fundamentalist group and everyone else who needs power without having much money to buy people but time on his hands. Well i`ll give you a hint: the human brain after birth (postnatal) is 500g and grows (neurogenesis) further within the next 5years to about 1500g - about the weight of the adult brain. So don`t ask why is there religion still in the 21st century, rather ask what accounts for this extreme conservation of societal fragments from one generation to another (memes). In other words you are asking the wrong questions: Now what is an UFO, but what created UFOs and why are there still UFOs...

The simplest answer any rational man will give you in any circumstance anywhere on the world whenever it regards a profound questioning of societies is: "Follow the money". PSS: I didn`t proof read, it may be that the answer is a bit confuse and missing words-, that is a tradeoff in quality instead of quantity. Slicky 19:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What?

Lets see if i got this straight. You Dont believe in God, you dont believe in U.F.O.s (although there is proof of their existance-not "wetter balloons"- whatever those might be). Is this what happens when someone becomes over educated? How much does a Krauts brain realy weigh? Stop reading before your head explodes.....

[edit] gavaity board

hi there ive stumbled across ya web page and some what intrested in the eqautions and scientific results as shown but this magenet "neo" as the industries call it would it need a power supply genarate the magnet "neo" to give some extra force on the power surpply runnin under the ground? and is it possible for a ice map on this magnet for possilbe research. matt_520@hotmail.com thankyou!!--86.140.182.16 22:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)--86.140.182.16 22:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC) matt

[edit] Your user page

Per your tag, I've deleted your user page. If you mistakenly applied this tag, just let me or any other admin know and we'll restore it. Cheers. -- Merope 13:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Today's featured article

Just wanted to let you know a featured article you worked on, 0.999..., was featured today on the Main Page. Tobacman 00:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)