Friendly Neighbour

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting -- ~~~~ at the end.
I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented:

• If I post on your talk page, I will notice any replies posted there.
• Unless you request otherwise, I will reply here to comments made here.

Start a new topic at the page bottom.

Archiving...

I wonder if you could be so kind as to remove some of the old discussions from this page to an archive? Some of the discussions appear to be causing someone a bit of upset (nothing major, but just a bit of upset), and the person in question has really turned over a new leaf. A bit of forgiveness and kindness is in order, I think. This is not an order or command, just a kind request. If this seems cryptic, it is because I am trying not to cause more problems for this person. But if you look at the sections above, I think you will know what I mean. If not, please email me?--Jimbo Wales 14:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, no problem with that. Friendly Neighbour 19:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo Wales.Why to try? Just do what you need to. I can not teach you as to anyone but I can either ask you or learn from you or I can do these with anyone and anything that represents you or is created by you. When I have to learn,Wikipedia has enough words that speak to help me learn and when I have to ask, I learnt that anyone should be there to speak where I am asking something. "Think and grow rich" has action hidden in middle and "Ask and it is given" has present hidden in middle. Be it one who is going to grow or the one who is going to give, can not grow or give without acknowledgement of having an already grown and given but hidden power of now or the power of present moment. Replying on a 17 years old chat doesn't matter to me, I reply now when I see and feel need to reply now matters for sure. I had done it many times if you find, you'll get. Time for me is "now" which is real,available,effective and is have the "power" to control what I think, what I ask, what I grow and what I give. Future is an illusion and past is an spent present. None of both can be either controlled or brought by me at this moment to use how I want to resuse and preuse or just store them to add value to my present time and work more, spend more and live more. If I know someone needs me now for some reason then I will be there now where my need is so that I can give what is asked or ask what is not given. Future is promised to no one. Past has returned to no one, when gone. Life is promised to no one. Life has returned to no one, when gone. Your Oxygen is the most cheapest thing that you have if you're breathing well and the same Oxygen is the most costly thing if you're struggling to breath in any Hospital Emergency. You will not spend a second for negotiating on it's price when it's matter of Life and Death. I am this person. Every moment is a war moment where I have no "time" to think and every "need" is a Oxygen need where I have no "reason" to negotiate. So It's my need and reason for being here that controls the time spent by here, not me, as stated before also at many places no idea where. So our "Need" and "reason" manage our time, not our "wish" and "plan".At last as I said above I am asking to get know why not to take "action" what our need says and why not to be "present" what our reason says? 49.35.145.31 (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I wonder how you found this comment and why you care. Aren't you the very person Jimbo tried to protect? Friendly Neighbour (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Heim again ...

Left this after reverting your deletion on B. heim page:

restoring comment of von Ludwiger, who is not unknown and has written a book on Heim which was reccomended as non-fiction book of the month by e.g. [1]

It was also given a similar distinction by one of the main German newspapers, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung [2] --hughey 18:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I still think that citing praises for a physicist from a known UFO researcher does Burkhard Heim no favor, but if you think that he deserves them then let them stay. --Friendly Neighbour 07:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Von Ludwiger was a physicist and pioneer in the German Space industry long before his UFO interests started. Note that the Suddeutsche Zeitung was big enough to judge the man by his work on Heim's thought in that book of his. Recall that several great physicists are very active in UFO research - Peter Sturrock or Bernard Haisch are cases in point. --hughey 09:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Haisch, the author of The God Theory... What can I say? If von Ludwiger is on the same level of fame, I would prefer not to be praised by him. But that's of course my private opinion. --Friendly Neighbour 16:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Assitance

Please help with User:Space Cadet.. :( he seems to be insulting me and wont let me add neutrality back to articles he reverted back to his versions which had been changed to his own good. What shall we do with these by adding own his opinions? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Space_Cadet

1. 21:08, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wielki Krzek (RV V) (top)
2. 21:07, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) History of Gdańsk (very neutral indeed) (top)
3. 21:06, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Dantzig (RVV) (top)
4. 21:04, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Drużno (don't correct Polish language if you don't know it) (top)
5. 21:02, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) List of islands of Poland (top)
6. 21:01, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Oksywie culture (revert revisionism) (top)
7. 21:01, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Polans (western) (rv revisionism) (top)
8. 20:42, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Oder-Neisse line (rv revisionism) (top)
9. 20:41, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Pomerania (rv v by anon) (top)
10. 20:40, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Szczecin (top)
11. 20:38, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Hermann Friedrich Waesemann (double naming) (top)
12. 20:38, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Danzig thaler (Gdańsk now AND then) (top)
13. 20:37, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Mundart des Weichselmündungsgebietes (rv revisionism) (top)
14. 20:36, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Ewald Christian von Kleist (rv revisionism) (top)
15. 20:36, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Daniel Chodowiecki (Gdańsk now AND then + watch the spelling, don't just blindly revert like an idiot) (top)
16. 20:35, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Biserica Neagră (Gdańsk now AND then) (top)
17. 20:35, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Hasso von Boehmer (Gdańsk now AND then) (top)
18. 20:34, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Gottlieb Hufeland (rv lies) (top)
19. 20:34, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Klaas Reimer (Gdańsk now AND then) (top)
20. 20:33, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Philipp Clüver (country important and neutral) (top)
21. 20:32, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) David Olère (Gdańsk now AND then) (top)
22. 20:32, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Danzig gulden (rv revisionism) (top)
23. 20:31, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Andreas Schlüter (NPOV) (top)
24. 20:31, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Henryk Leon Strasburger (it was ALWAYS Gdańsk, not just now) (top)
25. 20:30, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Albrecht Giese (rv v) (top)
26. 20:29, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Tiedemann Giese (sorry but yours is nationalistic) (top)
27. 20:28, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) The Last Judgment (Memling) (country important and completely neutral) (top)
28. 20:27, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Paúel Benecke (top)
29. 20:26, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Jacob Theodor Klein (You wish) (top)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.195.112.109 (talk • contribs)

Do you realize that such a blitzkrieg as the edit history of a new account (you) must raise some eyebrows. Especially as even a cursory review of your edits shows many spelling and factual errors. I think you should work more slowly and look at articles histories and Talk page discussion before you edit. You clearly did nothing like this so far today. Otherwise you would not be able to change so many articles in such a short time. Please try to explain your edits on the Talk pages of articles and in the edit comments (in a more informative way than claiming everything you don't like is vandalism). Thank you. --Friendly Neighbour 21:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oksywie culture

Original article comprise of "Oxhoft Culture" but Space cadets removal set bad fighting in motion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.195.112.109 (talk • contribs)

You wrote in your edit summary "reverted vandalism commited by many users and anons". Do you realize that you've simply admitted to go against the consensus? Please read WP:OWN. --Friendly Neighbour 21:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I added back Oxhöft culture but your other changes are not necessary. --Friendly Neighbour 21:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Galactic Coordinates

Thank you for the comment. That saves me from making a big mistake (though now I have a big problem instead). I found the 'Galactic coordinate system' to be a bit confusing - thus my wonky viewpoint. I guess this is what happens when an InfoSys masters student tries to do a dissertation using Astronomic/Astrobiological data... ^.^ --MatthewKarlsen 17:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Uncilivness

Spacecadet alienete me and insult me further.. Why does people allow this uncivilness?

1. 20:53, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Albrecht Giese (rv lies) (top)
2. 20:52, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Tiedemann Giese (rv lies) (top)
3. 20:52, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Oder River (Bydgoszcz in German is Bromberg, check your sources, ignorant.) (top)
4. 20:50, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Oder-Neisse line (rv v)
5. 19:31, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Oder River (this is not a history article)

I add relevant information to those, and even additions to Albrecht Giese (rv lies) and Tiedemann Giese (rv lies) are in other articles. But spoacecadet say lieing? Why do people let this get passed without objection? He scares away many wikipiediers?172.191.156.115

A few points:

1. Could you set up a proper (named) account. How are people to know that you are the same user the communicated with yesterday when you constantly change the IP numbers?
2. I try not to mix into edit conflicts where I do not know who is right. I could research all the articles you listed but I do not have time for that. Sorry.
3. There are proper ways to use in your situation. You can report the users on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If they broke the three-revert rule you can file a report on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. You could even ask for WP:Arbitration. More options are listed on Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. However, any report has lower chances of success when you are a new IP number every day (see point one).

I hope that helps. Cheerio. --Friendly Neighbour 21:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You may or may not be aware that the user writing just above this comment has sent exactly the same message to me; I know not to how many others. I have advised him, after an abortive attempt to get him to talk to his principal opponent, to take his problem to WP:AN/I. I also suggested that s/he make an account, which of course accords with the comment which you have made to him. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. And you probably noticed that I'm sure 172.195.112.109 and 172.191.156.115 are the same person with a different IP number every day. The continuation of reverts shows that beyond any doubt. And if, so, he does a good job of avoiding breaking WP:3RR (even counting together both accounts). So he looks like an experienced Wikipedian who plays a complete novice to make the admins' hearts softer. I told you yesterday that what he does is identical to sneaky vandalism. And the disruption is gargantuan. What should we do? --Friendly Neighbour 22:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

I just yesterday changed the colour of my signature, and carelessly typed "Usertalk" rather than "User talk". Thank you for your vigilance. It is corrected now.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome :-) --Friendly Neighbour 21:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?

What do you want now? I'm pretty confused. Ziniticus 20:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

To welcome your decision of listening to our advice and setting up a named account. --Friendly Neighbour 21:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Your patience

...is commendable, and far exceeds my own (resp. this thread). The most frustrating thing is that he's absolutely convinced that he knows what he's doing. Raymond Arritt 21:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise. However, I have a related question. Are you teaching (no matter whether on academic or lower level)? At present I am examining my students. Some are confused in ways I would not think possible. I try to get some things straight while examining them believing it is my last chance to actually teach them something. Such experience teaches a lot of patience towards ignorance. Thanks again, --Friendly Neighbour 05:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your experience sounds quite familiar! Please email if you would like to discuss further. Raymond Arritt 13:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello@ Friendly user. I saw you at user Karma[some suffixes] talk page and came here. It seems your problem of being upset with deleionists has solved and you're doing well now. I was here to see that only. Anyways it's fine if you and your creations are stable and protected now. I saw you have put all Wikipedia rules and policies on on user page. Is it for your daily study or you want visitors read them? I keep reading "All Human....." and many other human human quotes writen by Wikipedia. Well are are waste. Suppose I am a human [ I am 😅] who came to meet you at your home[your page] and you are doing sometimes inside[talk page]. You have made all arrangements of hosting a visitor in your guest/living/dining room [user page] by putting snacks/water/drinks/fruits/sweets[Those Wikimedia redirects of rules] at place then what a human I.e. The visitor would first to after entering into your hone? Will they just attack on the dining table to finish your items and go back without meeting or talking to you. God save from such guests!🙄. I never did it.I call or go to meet inside where that friend or relative seems hiding[ sorry doing some homeworks] and is probably didn't got my voice heard. Then we talk to each other, share something common experiences or difficulties or any affairs that must be going on. After this only we start seeing the menu card kept to welcome us and then finally after getting treat like having those all items[Rules dishes] and anything else we leave with giving thanks and wishing each other's well being and another visit in any one's place sooner. This is the way how humanity works, circle works,community works,friendship works,leadership workss,organization work to exchange,teach,learn,show,give,take,plan,proceed,progress and achieve. I missed this in Wikipedia. If you're in confident and stable position then you may think and suggest it to your bosses if you consider and think it as culture of work, culture of community or culture of family. This apply everywhere. There can be two nations head in the place of you and I."Vasudhaiv Kutubakam" Sanskrit[ The world is a family]. Please read my casual thought on "Paitence" that I wrote in that user page before it gets speedy deleted and give me your valuable opinions and experience. Thank.49.35.153.154 (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Nice work on Redfield Ratio

Hi Friendly Neighbour! I just wanted to stop by and say thank you for the improvements you made to Redfield ratio. This is a new concept I just came across in reading about ocean chemistry and climate. I saw it was a notable concept but I didn't have the background to put it into clear yet simple terms, as you were able to do. A good neighbour indeed. Birdbrainscan 18:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Although I have the feeling that you attribute to me also the work of other editors. --Friendly Neighbour 19:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The Sun

The sun is not travelling through Local Fluff of the Local Bubble so stop saying that —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.161.6 (talk) 19:33:06, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. See this paper for example: Priscilla C. Frisch, 1997, "The Local Bubble, Local Fluff, and Heliosphere", arXiv:astro-ph/9710141. By the way you've just broke WP:3RR. --Friendly Neighbour 19:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

what do you think?

Many-worlds_interpretation#Waveform_Collapse_Explained_by_Continuous_Branching Always a lot of hype in that magazine Godspeed John Glenn! Will 00:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What should I say. You did a good job writing the paragraph. However, I have strong misgivings about the multiverse explanations of either the quantum probabilities or the anthropic principle. It's more philosophy than physics in the meaning of not being falsifiable. Popper would not agree it's science and here I would agree with him (though I have some separate views on Popper's ideas about falsifiability, criterion of demarcation and induction). In a nutshell the idea of waveform collapse explanation by continuous branching is not empirically testable, is it? --Friendly Neighbour 13:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The long term editors of that article changed the name of the paragraph to "Probalistic Ex..." Deutsch says a reversible intelligent quantum computer would be able to falsify the theory. The different angle on the multiverse now is quantum computing. Where is the computing taking place? Also there are some unique insights such as the photon interference in the single slit. Self interfence in parallel universes. Our buddy Hdeasy does not like the multiverse either. Thanks for looking at it. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 13:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Universe or detectable space

I agree, detectable space is confusing too. I changed it to the part of the universe that we can currently detect given the restrictions of current technologies. We do not know that the CMB fills the universe, since we cannot see all the universe. Saying that we can is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.176.22 (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that what I thought. Is it space you can detect? How do you detect space? Etc. I agree that we cannot be sure CMB fills the detectable universe but this is the first sentence of the article. You can not go too technical in the first sentence as people will use it as the definition. I believe Vsmith was right to revert you. --Friendly Neighbour (talk) 05:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

From the same reasons, I also reverted you on the Universe article. --Friendly Neighbour (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree

	Chubbennaitor's Hidden Barnstar
	This user has found Chubbennaitor's Secret Page and proudly exhibits this award. See if you can find the hay-coloured pin in a haystack link?Ver. 2.5

I completely agree. If it's MySpace then a userspace falls under that category. Chubbennaitor 16:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Your reference of Takahashi 2002 from 7 years ago.

Hello,
In an edit you made 7 years ago to the page on Henry's Law, you represented Takahashi et al's meaning as: "Partial pressure of CO₂ in seawater doubles with every 16 K increase in temperature."
Since then, user Jshor05 has edited that sentence to insert (in my bolding) a reference to the atmosphere which may alter the authenticity of the whole sentence: "Partial pressure of CO₂ in the gas phase in equilibrium with seawater..."
When I cited this revised statement in an argument recently, my opponent claimed that the latest revision is a misrepresentation of Takahashi's paper, implying JShor05 had distorted the meaning, and further stating that "Increasing the water temperature won’t increase PCO2(g) and PCO2(aq) by exactly corresponding amounts because the respective reservoirs have different quantities of CO2". I suspect JShor's edit does not alter the truth of the statement due to the equilibrium condition, nonetheless the claim has been made that JShor05 misrepresented Takahashi 2002 on the substances involved in that particular dynamic relation. I am not asking whether the revised statement is true, I am asking you whether it fairly represents what Takahashi et al said in their paper.
I'm asking you instead of JShor05 because I'm assuming you had access to the paper to be able to create a statement about it originally. Certainly, your original referenced summary would be suspect if it could not be verified against the paper.
Can you find a copy of the paper now? Can you locate a freely-available copy of the paper on the web so anybody can check the statement? (I have searched but have been unable.) From which particular numbered section of the paper did you create your original statement?
Can you say whether JShor05's edit misrepresents Takahashi 2002?

If Takahashi did not actually make that statement (or words to that same effect) then JShor05's edit should be reverted, or at least edited to indicate which part is taken directly from Takahashi versus which part is an inference or assumption of a Wikipedian.
- Andrew McRae 78 (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Friendly Neighbour. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)