User talk:Stigmatella aurantiaca/Archive 2

Thanks for editing Bucherer_expt.fr

Thanks for your very careful editing of Bucherer_expt.fr !

Trassiorf (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! SVG images can be very frustrating to work with on Wikipedia, because of the bugs in the librsvg library. I've struggled with them a long time and so am familiar with their idiosyncrasies.

I see from your profile that you are a retired physicist. On the English Wikipedia, Dieter (User:D.H) and I have lately been working to improve many of the articles associated with the experimental verification of relativity. Dieter is a professional physicist of German origin who has done the bulk of the hard science writing, while I'm an interested amateur who is a native English speaker and who has added multiple illustrations to supplement the articles. Michelson–Morley experiment and Fizeau experiment are thus far two of our more complete efforts together, while several others, such as Kennedy–Thorndike experiment and Ives–Stilwell experiment, are in progress.

I notice that on the French Wikipedia, fr:Expérience de Michelson-Morley is rather incomplete, while fr:Expérience de Fizeau deals with Fizeau's tooth-wheel measurement of the speed of light, whereas the English Wikipedia article deals with Fizeau's measurement of partial aether-dragging by water. Perhaps we could all collaborate on extending and improving the French articles?

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This seems a good idea. I have to have a look at the quoted articles, be it in French, English or German, to see whether I can bring about a useful contribution.

As an "experienced" translator, I know that the templates are far from being universal or trans-lingual. I have my own private dictionary, where I collect some of my experiences, good or bad. It would be great if there should be some agreement at least on the most important ones, but this is not the case. And the English wp does not care a bit about it : they dominate anyway, and the only way they could see it would be by imposing their views ...

Greetings ! Trassiorf (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that most French articles on relativity tests are not up to date. Maybe Trassiorf or someone else can translate the main article Tests of special relativity into French? My French isn't sufficient to do it myself. --D.H (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Tests of special relativity was next on my list for extensive copy-editing. I'll try to get the copyediting done by end of the week. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Marcel – I used your figure in Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments along with another figure that I drew to represent the top view. Could you check that my captions and illustration describe the scenario properly? In wikisource:Measurements of Becquerel rays θ and P are shown at a wider angle than α which is counterintuitive to me. I would have thought that the helical motion of the electron would have moved the impact point P in the other direction. So am I misunderstanding Bucherer's figure? Thanks! (Tom/Thomas) Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I've started the simultaneous translation of tests of special relativity and de:Tests der speziellen Relativitätstheorie into French. I think it will cover a number of the topics you mention.

Trassiorf (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I altered the curve to be consistent with a helical motion of the electron in the magnetic field. I don't think that θ and P being shown at a wider angle than α in wikisource:Measurements of Becquerel rays means what it seems to mean. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 06:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The articles on SR tests are steadily growing in English, German and French Wikipedia. Fine work! --D.H (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I added white layers to File: MMX with optical resonators fr.svg and to File:MMX with optical resonators DE.svg to brighten up the thumbnail backgrounds on the German and French Wikipedias. English thumbnails don't require the white background. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded an SVG version of my File:Michelson interferometer white light.svg to Commons. Previously I had been using a PNG because of a bug that I have only just now succeeded in removing by directly editing the SVG file using a text editor. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you please also replace File:Hammar experiment.png with a SVG version? Thanks. --D.H (talk) 09:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded File:Hammar experiment.svg to Commons. It originally did not render well on Internet Explorer, although it rendered OK on Firefox and Chrome. I've fixed the rendering error. Hammar was fairly vague on details, so it is pure guesswork on my part as to how thick the pipe was, whether the lead plugs were mushroom shaped or not, etc. I decided to make the pipe thicker than in my PNG, and to separate the two arms of the interferometer a bit more than I originally had them. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine, thanks. --D.H (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: File:AFLteamlocations.svg

Thank you so much for your help! Tampabay721 (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Relativity

Thanks for the encouragement! I just noticed that the illustration of the K-T experiment that I included is one of yours. Nice work! And I love this animation. See you around. Braincricket (talk) 05:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Folding@home is a FA candidate

Just wanted to let you know that I have nominated Folding@home for Featured Article status because I believe it meets the criteria. Comments or assistance welcome! :D • Jesse V.^(talk) 01:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

HK experiment

I temporarily activated my wiki mail account. --D.H (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me know that the download was satisfactory. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thank you very much! --D.H (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Interferometry

I've belatedly responded to your request on my Talk page re Interferometry. Apologies for the delay and the not very helpful response. All I say is

I meant to get back to the article to be able to respond properly, but haven't done so, apologies. My edits were basically tidying up the wording, I will have to spend some time on the article to say anything more general. You have probably sorted it out, but adding Template:Expert-subject is probably the best way to invoke an expert. See also Wikipedia:Expert editors. User talk:Pol098#Your general impressions of Interferometry?

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

A belated response is better than never. Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Michelson-morley calculations

Hi, could you please provide a SVG version of File:Michelson-morley calculations.png. Thanks, --D.H (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've learned how to use a text editor to remove the anomalous flow elements that were making the SVG version unusable, and I've added a white background rather than leaving it transparent, so it should look better on the German Wikipedia rather than having a gray background.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michelson-morley_calculations.svg Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks! --D.H (talk) 08:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings!

The "air dragging" effect can be discussed in Michelson-Morley experiment. Please provide sufficient historical analysis and reference to prove or disprove it and share your knowledge in the article, rather than just deleting other's text pretending you are the God knows everything and judges everything,which would be more critical, logical and appropriate. Wiki is a public encyclopedia for everyone, not your own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.139.108 (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I have discussed this matter on the Talk page of the article, and yes, I have provided cross-references to Wiki articles as well as a reference to a recent experimental study. The main article space is not the place for this sort of debate. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think light propagation in the air is discussed sufficiently in Michelson-Morley experiment article in wiki. Since I have checked the reading and did not find a single word like the :air", and then decided to add it. The subject should be discussed in this experiment. wiki is public encyclopedia, everyone has the freedom to share ideas and knowledge. And I reserve this right. If you can not stay neutral, you are definitely welcome to refer some materials to disprove that, rather than deleting other's text without understanding and respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.106.101 (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Please place your comments on the Talk page of Talk:Michelson-Morley experiment#The effect of the air in the section that I have provided for this discussion. You must face the full user community for judgement on your proposed additions. You do not have the right to unilaterally insert ignorant, poorly-thought-out original research into the article. And please create a stable user name for yourself. You have thus far used three different IP addresses. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I have responsed in Talk:Michelson-Morley experiment#The effect of the air with a stable user name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siwei Pi Luo (talk • contribs) 02:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

X-ray detectors

Hello, Stigmatella aurantiaca, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on X-ray detectors, appears to be directly copied from http://www.jpihealthcare.com/digital-x-ray/x-ray-detectors. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on X-ray detectors if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of X-ray detectors

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on X-ray detectors requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 06:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I'm aware that you were merely moving content, and not actually creating copyvio content yourself. Clearly you're a respectable, established editor, and, frankly, I'd be surprised too, to perform some basic maintenance to a page only to find that some years-old content on it were actually plagiarized. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 06:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Looked at the content in question and it appears that http://www.jpihealthcare.com/digital-x-ray/x-ray-detectors is plagiarism from use. If you look at the three images they have they are all from Wikipedia uploaded by different users at different times and they give no attribution. Returned the text until things can be verified further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stigmatella aurantiaca. You have new messages at Francophonie&Androphilie's talk page.
Message added 07:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry. Should've sent this earlier. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 07:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stigmatella aurantiaca. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 23:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Why all this moving around?

Just curious... :-)

I have been waiting expectantly since June 2012 for User:Mcm222 to finish his draft article "Phase-contrast X-ray imaging" so that I can link to it from Interferometry, an article of which I am principal author. So I've watched his article go from User:Mcm222/draft of article to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Phase-contrast X-ray imaging, then saw a history merge, then saw it moved to MediaWiki:Articles for creation/Phase-contrast X-ray imaging and now I see it once again as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Phase-contrast X-ray imaging?

Is this some sort of staging area where the article has to undergo review or something? When will the article become simply Phase-contrast X-ray imaging?

In the past, whenever I've created a new article from scratch, I just copied it straight out of my sandbox into the main article namespace. I'm sure there are reasons for the elaborate dance that I'm seeing, but I can't figure out what they are... :-) Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

In the past, whenever I've created a new article from scratch, I just copied it straight out of my sandbox into the main article namespace. I'm sure there are reasons for the elaborate dance that I'm seeing, but I can't figure out what they are... :-).

I must say, I had a good laugh over that specific line. Well, yes, there is actually a reason for that elaborate dance. When copy and pasting a page, you will lose the entire page history and past revisions of that page meaning one cannot go "back in time" to verify content against an older version. Additionally the copyright policy Wikipedia uses for content (CC-BY-SA) requires that all editors are attributed for their work. When copy pasting a page the history is lost, which essentially is a violation of the copyright license. Besides this the editor submitted the article to Wikiproject article's for creation which is a review process for article's before they are accepted. Those pages are kept in the Wikipedia talk namespace; Partially because they are neatly grouped together as opposed to being in multiple user sandboxes, and partially because some speedy deletion criteria don't apply outside the article namespace.

Now, i guess you may be thinking "But why did you laugh about that line?". Actually, the correct procedure for AFC moving is User sandbox => Wikipedia Talk namespace => (If acceptable) Article space. Now on THIS article that.... didn't go as intended. When moving it to the AFC space i accidentally copied some extra text "(Revision history)" which caused the article to land on the wrong spot. When trying to correct that i tried to do it to fast, and moved it to the mediawiki namespace. Again noticing THAT mistake i finally moved it to the right spot and merged the history.... Only to find out i forgot to restore the topmost revision after the merger which caused the article to lose its "waiting for review" template.

So yes, there IS a reason for dancing around with those article's. But in this case i ended up waltzing straight out of the window, falling into the rainwater tank and then started tangoing trough a few bushes and the cellar before ending in the dance hall where i was supposed to be all along :). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Understood. :-) Anyway, I'm busy cleaning up the references so that the multiple issues template can be removed. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ecosystem GAR

I just wanted to say thanks for doing that review last summer, and to apologise for dropping off the face of the planet after nominating the article. Work got in the way, and I spent several weeks sitting in front of the computer for 18 hours a day. Sorry about that. I appreciate your input, and when I get a chance I will revisit the article and try to address the points you raised. Guettarda (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Algol AB movie

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Algol AB movie imaged with the CHARA interferometer - labeled.gif, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sagnac article etc.

Hi,

Please see my response posted on the Sagnac talk page :-)

Interferometrist (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Binomial nomenclature

I noticed that your username appears to be a binomial name and as such ought to be italicized as per manual of style. You can customise how your username appears in your signature in Special:Preferences.

... I'm just kidding. I am very impressed by the many wonderful figures you have contributed and your diligence in expanding and improving articles. In the undergrad optics class I'm taking this term, I'm working with the Michelson interferometer and the Fabry-Perot interferometer and have greatly benefited from your contributions.

Here, have a barnstar:

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Good work on donating a large amount of useful figures and significantly contributing to a large number of articles. Purpy Pupple (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, I hope to see more amazing stuff from you in the future.

As a side note, maybe consider expanding your namesake article. Purpy Pupple (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments, and you're definitely very welcome! Scientific illustration is sometimes difficult because, in simplifying a concept, you have to go through difficult soul-searching in deciding whether to try to be completely accurate versus completely clear. Take for instance the Fabry-Perot interferometer. I left out on purpose the first reflective ray going out to the left and the transmitted rays passing out towards the left. Even after discussing the matter with Srleffler in User_talk:Srleffler#Fabry.E2.80.93P.C3.A9rot_interferometer, I've always felt torn about about my decision.

Incidentally, do you have an opinion one way or another about Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/NGC 2467?

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/NGC 2467, if you haven't noticed, I'm one of the supporters already. I do believe it ought to be promoted.

As for scientific drawings, I agree it is hard to please everyone. My own attempts at scientific diagrams have so far been limited to the (almost embarrassing) little File:Swinging_Atwoods_Machine.svg. I think every way to explain complex topics has the same conflict regarding accuracy vs simplicity/understandability -- this is the case even with written stuff (albeit arguably to a lesser extent). Purpy Pupple (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A trinket of thanks

		The Space Barnstar
		For going above and beyond to improve NGC 2467 and helping a great deal at its associated FPC, I'd like to express my thanks with this little barnstar. It's contributions like these that renew my faith in the original and unifying vision of Wikipedia: building a insightful and topical resource. :) ceranthor 19:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Bell

Hi, I recently started to expand the article on Bell's spaceship paradox. I would be delighted if you have time to participate, and include further improvements or some illustrations. --D.H (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the only method of explaining Bell's Paradox that seems to work is tying the text closely with a series of spacetime diagrams. The reader has to trust what the spacetime diagrams have to say, because even after working with them and understanding that the string has to break, intuition doesn't seem to be satisfied. I've set up a shared Google Drive folder. I don't want to introduce any figures that don't clear your scrutiny first.

https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B1P2I2bmtkbOcTh4QVJlbU1aaUk/edit?usp=sharing

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for NGC 2467

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Binary star revisions

Hi Stigmatella aurantiaca, I just looked at the page on my phone and that section did not display properly as you said. Is there any way you know of which can format such image groupings in a way which will work on a smaller screen? Is there any official Wikimedia policy on what kind of device should get priority in terms of formatting? I suppose it should be based on numbers of people accessing from PCs compared to phones, do any such numbers exist? Thanks Originalwana (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of any official policy, but I know it is a concern. If I'm reading the statistics correctly, in 2011, 21% of Wikipedia access was via smartphones. http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/11/16/wikipedia-devices/ I'd be reasonably sure that the numbers have gone up since then. I've been out to lunch with my co-workers on a number of occasions, and it seems that half the time when we are having an entertaining discussion, somebody will whip out their smartphone to settle the argument, usually by looking up the subject on Wikipedia.

Sorry, I don't know of any image groupings that work well on the small screen, but I believe that the Wikipedia app makes some attempt to rectify the problem. But only a tiny minority of users use the Wikipedia app. Most just use the browsers that come with their phones. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed the multiple image template, then replaced the inaccurate GIF with the ESO movie that you contributed. The GIF showed perspective effects, which is pretty absurd when you think about it. Your movie is much nicer! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Refraction in File:Mach Zehnder interferometer.svg

Figure 1: observe the beam passing through the beam splitters

Figure 2: done correctly.

The beams passing through the beam splitters are not being refracted properly considering the thick glass layer on the beam splitters (Figure 1). As such, the reader is left confused as to why the glass layer is on opposite sides. Consider changing it to be like Figure 2. Cheers, dllu (t,c) 20:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have updated my userboxes so that they take up less space. I think userboxes ought to be minimalistic and their meaning should be clear from only the left side box. Above all, the appearance of userboxes should be consistent. Unfortunately, userboxes are super inconsistent now, so I had to remove a bunch of them. By the way, what do you think of my article on Monte Carlo localization? Nobody on Peer Review wants to review it (probably because I haven't been active reviewing other people's articles). You've probably also seen Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Monte Carlo localization. I hope it doesn't fall into WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. dllu (t,c) 20:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hmmm... A highly desirable feature of any Wikipedia article is its ability to provide useful information to a wide variety of users whose understanding of the subject may range from novice to reasonably sophisticated. Now, since I don't understand anything about the subject, I am probably a good target for experimentation at the complete novice end of things. So... Let me make a wild set of guesses as to what the article and your illustration is saying, and you can correct me where I am wrong (which is probably everywhere!)

• I agree, I've been trying to use layman terms as much as possible. But it is tricky to make things understandable and yet not overly verbose or imprecise. dllu (t,c) 07:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Let's begin at the beginning. What is the purpose of Monte Carlo localization in your illustration? The nearest that I can figure that that you need the robot to be able to navigate autonomously. You've equipped the robot with a video sensor of some sort, and the robot is equipped with analysis software that attempts to detect features (doors) in the video input. However, the feature detection software is imperfect, and can only determine the presence or absence of a door on a probabilistic basis. Environmental noise confuses the issue.

• To be able to navigate autonomously, the robot must first know where it is. The purpose of this algorithm is for the robot to find out where it is, based on sensor readings. (Making decisions about where to go next, however, is a different topic altogether... that could be active localization, if the goal is to strategically move the robot to localize itself faster, or robotic path planning, if the goal is just to get somewhere) In this example, a robot only has one sensor that checks whether there is a door (it could be a video camera, or it could even be a hand that reaches out to touch the wall or something... it doesn't matter at all). It is true that the sensor is imperfect. dllu (t,c) 07:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• From what I gather, the particle filter algorithm starts with an imperfect set of hypotheses about the doors and the position of the robot with respect to the doors. The robot takes a random sampling of measurements of its environment, which are called "particles." The total set of measurements of its environment constitutes the robot's "belief", i.e. the robot's internal model of the environment and its position within the environment. The robot moves to a new position, and based on its imperfect understanding of its environment, shifts its internal model of the environment so that the model will overlay as closely as possible what its predicted view of the environment would be from its new vantage point.

• Each hypothesis is a particle. The set of all particles is its belief, which is the robot's internal model of its position within the environment. At the start, the robot has absolutely no idea where it is so it assumes it is equally likely to be anywhere. Thus it scatters its hypotheses around uniformly. You are correct regarding the motion update: whenever the robot moves, it shifts its internal model to predict where it will be. dllu (t,c) 07:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• OK. That was my key misunderstanding of the illustration. I was thinking, incorrectly, that each sensor reading was was a particle. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• From its new vantage point, the robot compares its predicted view of the environment with its actual view of the environment. Where there is correspondence between predicted and actual views (i.e. doors showing up where it thinks that doors should show up), the robot assigns greater weight to the particle distribution; conversely, where correspondence is lacking, the robot lessens the particle distribution weight.

• Correct. The "view" of the environment here is simply whether or not there is a door right in front of the robot (a very narrow view!) Essentially, for each particle, the robot thinks to itself, "hmm, if I were at this position, what are the chances that my sensors would produce this reading?" and if those chances are high, then that particle gets a high weight and conversely for low chances. dllu (t,c) 07:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Big point of confusion here at t=0 second step (Sensor update). If the robot's "view" of the environment is limited to determining whether or not there is a door right in front of it, how can it know that there are three doors? The ability to narrow down its position to three possible sets of locations implies remote sensing of some sort. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• As stated in the second sentence of the article, the algorithm only works given a map of the environment. The robot starts out knowing what the environment is like (e.g. how many doors there are; and where the doors are), but without any idea of where it is within that environment. Perhaps this point is worth stressing more throughout the article. Robot localization differs from simultaneous localization and mapping in that a localization algorithm starts out with a complete map of the environment already. The fact that robot localization redirects to robotic mapping is quite wrong indeed. To be quite honest, Wikipedia articles on robotics are quite a mess -- possibly due to how fast the field is advancing. Oh well, all the more reason to spend time writing articles. dllu (t,c) 11:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Repeated cycles of movement, prediction, and update result in iterative improvements to the robot's internal model of the environment.

• Correct. dllu (t,c) 07:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• OK. Now you have to correct all of my misunderstandings. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• You seem to mostly understand it correctly. It seems that my explanation of what exactly particles are is a bit weak (and this is not helped by the horrible Particle Filter article). I am sure the article will be more approachable for neophytes if I replace jargon like "state" and "pose" with just the intuitive "position"; but then that would be inaccurate, since the goal of the algorithm is to find both the position and the orientation and possibly many other things. For example, a robotic arm has many degrees of freedom (each joint being free to rotate) and its state would consist of all the angles at each joint. To talk about the position of a robotic arm could mean only the position of the tip of its arm, ignoring the all the angles along the arm (which can lead to disaster).

• What the article needs is a gentle introduction to the subject, with arrangement of the remaining topics from easy to hard. Compare the 3/25/2012 version of Fabry-Perot interferometer with the 5/15/2012 version after I finished a series of edits. The "Basic description" (I hope) manages to describe the subject in a relatively accessible fashion without sacrificing too much in the way of rigor (although, as you know, I agonized over omitting the leftward reflected rays in the illustration that I added). Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Good idea. I should work on that sometime (after final exams this month, maybe). dllu (t,c) 11:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Monte Carlo localization is a type of Markov localization (which is an article I may want to write this summer). Basically, the robot is never completely sure of exactly where it is... it stores its position as a probability density function. In a sense, a robot is a bit like a photon (or any quantum object) -- the belief is somewhat analogous to a wave function. When it moves its position distribution spreads out, i.e. it is less certain of where it is. When it senses the environment, it's like measuring the position of a photon which collapses its wave function -- the resulting belief therefore peaks more sharply at its actual location.
• Markov localization is called Markov localization because the next state only depends on the current state and not any states before that.
• There are many kinds of Markov localization algorithms. In Monte Carlo localization the belief is a set of particles -- more particles clustered together means higher probability, fewer particles means less probability. There is another algorithm, Grid-based localization, which represents this probability distribution as a histogram. Meanwhile, the Extended Kalman Filter represents the distribution as a Gaussian.
• Thank you so much for taking the time to review my article and picture! I hope you've learnt something interesting and useful too. Please let me know if it is still not clear. dllu (t,c) 07:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• The various clarifications that you've provided to me here might be useful in the proposed "gentle introduction" to the topic. One final note: Surely you mean "deprivation", not "depravation"? :-) Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing that out! Deprivation and depravation look and sound so similar that I find it easy to make that typo. dllu (t,c) 11:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sagnac effect recent (february) improvements

Hello Stig,

greetings from user Cleonis. (I abbreviate your nick to 'Stig'. If you'd rather have me not do that please say so.)

I noticed your improvements to the Sagnac effect article. My last contribution dates back to March 2009.

I'm very happy that the Fiber Optic Conveyer setup is now also discussed in the article. The animation is just great.

About the directions of the arrows in the diagram showing a Sagnac interferometer ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sagnac_interferometer.png ): Out of curiosity: what was your criterium for placing those arrows? It may be that you assumed the light source consists of two point sources side by side, analogous to a double slit setup. With two point sources side by side one gets that at each mirror reflection the beams go from "inside lane" to "outside lane" (so to speak). That would explain your choice of arrow placement.

When I placed the arrows in the image I put one group on the inside and the other group on the outside. I did that because I don't know the arrangement of the light source. I figured it could also be a single point source.

It seems to me a single point source (in a pathlength difference setup) can give an interference pattern in the following way: when the light exits the setup, it will effectively be two point sources, one behind the other. When the Sagnac interferometer is rotating, there will be a pathlength difference. The interference pattern will then consist of rings.

Anyway, not knowing the setup of the light source I didn't consider taking some "inside lane" / "outside lane" reflection effect into account.

Another thing. I usually upload images in the following three sizes: 256x256px, 512x512px, 1024x1024px. The images are edited as a 1024x1024 image, without anti-aliasing, so that if I later want to change a color I can simply flood fill. The 1024x1024 version is the original; the one that is easy to re-edit. I then create 512x512 and 256x256 versions from that, with a good quality downsizing tool. The downsizing process has the beneficial side-effect of anti-aliasing the image.

I'm aware of course that Wikipedia has an image size policy of it's own. Large images are downsized by the servers as needed. The downsized versions are cached. (However, animations are not re-sized server side.)

For the images that I have uploaded to wikipedia I have not used that. Whenever I included an image in an article I used the 256x256px version, displayed at its own resolution. (I don't want robot-processing of images I created.)

I'm OK with some of the arrows in that diagram being flipped, I just want to point out to you that the larger sized version, the version intended for re-editing, is still there.

--Cleonis | Talk 13:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I assumed the beam to be a broad collimated source, and followed the path of one-half of the beam as it reflected through the mirrors and beam splitter. Had there been room, I would have shown an arrow along one half of the source, as I did in Hammar experiment.

This trick of treating right and left halves of a symmetric source differently hearkens back to the standard paleontological convention of illustrating right and left halves of a fossil at different levels of dissection. I can't find any online examples of this, but you can find many in Stephen Jay Gould's book Wonderful Life. (Gould's book is truly "wonderful", but you need to bear in mind that the current consensus is that Gould went a bit too far in his insistence on the vast majority of of Burgess fossils representing unique body plans having no current representatives.)

A more technically correct way of depicting the distinction between odd- and even- path Sagnac interferometers might be this one from Hariharan's textbook:illustration from Optical Interferometry, but I find it a bit too complex unless I were to be writing specifically about this distinction rather than mostly being concerned with other aspects of the interferometer. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't indiscriminately italicize

Hello.

Please not that you should not indiscriminately italicize everything in non-TeX mathematical notation. One italicizes variables but NOT parentheses and NOT digits and NOT things line sin, log, max, det, etc.

Right: ax² + bx + c = 0

Wrong: ax² + bx + c = 0

Right: y = f(x)

Wrong: y = f(x)

Right: sin x

Wrong: sin x

This is codified in WP:MOSMATH and is consistent with TeX style. It's been standard in Wikipedia for a long time. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For your good work all over the place and for that little comment on my TP, allowing me to ignore someone for a while :-) Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Continued from the One-way speed of light talk page

As we have been told off for talking on the 'One-way speed of light' talk page I suggest that we continue here, if you wish. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you believe that that Gaydon's claim that they measured OWLS anisotropy independently of any clock synchronisation scheme is justified? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. If you wish to dispute that, you need to tell me what clocks are being synchronized. The Gagnon experiment is nothing more than a microwave variant of the Mach-Zehnder interferometer. An unmodulated, monochromatic carrier wave is split into two beams that travel divergent paths towards a common, remote target, and the phase difference between the two beams is measured at the said remote target. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You first need to tell me how this arrangement could possibly measure the one-way speed of light. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It can't. I never claimed that it could. I claim that it can measure anisotropies in the one-way speed of light. You might as well be asking me how MMX could possibly measure the two-way speed of light. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

So how does it measure those then? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

MMX cannot measure the two-way speed of light. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that is not what I meant. In your opinion, how does the Gaydon experiment measure variations in OWLS with direction? (Yes I can read paper but I want your view). In other words, how can two beams travelling in the same direction be used to measure variations with respect to direction in the time take for one of the beams so reach its target. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You really should be able to do this on your own.

Assume a classical aether with simple velocity addition of c ± v
40.160 GHz is the carrier frequency
The waveguides are 8 ft long = 2.4384 m
The orbital velocity of the Earth is 0.0001 c
c = 299 792 458 m/s
The phase velocities in the near-cutoff and far-from-cutoff waveguides are 20 c and 1.2 c, respectively.

Perpendicular to Earth's orbital motion

Phase velocity	Wavelength (mm)	Waves in waveguide	Predicted output phase difference
20 c	149.2990	16.3323	45.68°
1.2 c	8.957942	272.2054

Parallel to aether drift from Earth's orbital motion

Phase velocity	Wavelength (mm)	Waves in waveguide	Predicted output phase difference
20.0001 c	149.2998	16.3322	53.82°
1.2001 c	8.958688	272.1827

Antiparallel to aether drift from Earth's orbital motion

Phase velocity	Wavelength (mm)	Waves in waveguide	Predicted output phase difference
19.9999 c	149.2983	16.3325	37.58°
1.1999 c	8.957195	272.2281

There are no output phase variations in SRT. In LET, application of the Lorentz transforms causes the output phase variations to "magically" disappear even though OWLS varies with orientation. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I cannot do this on my own because it is a nonsensical calculation. I shall ignore the fact that you have chosen to use the obsolete concept of a classical aether on the grounds that the same calculation could be done using an appropriate test theory for SR. You purport to calculate the effect of aether motion in the velocity of the superluminal signals. You do this by assuming that you simply add the velocity of the superluminal signal to the velocity of the system through the aether. What justification do you use for this? A light signal in free space travels at c with respect to the aether frame and at c + v (where v is the speed of the system through the aether) with respect to the system. A signal travelling at a slower speed, say x, through the aether frame does not travel at as speed of x + x and a signal travelling at 20c does not travel at 20c + v. This is the error in the claim. Of course this would be much better shown by using conventional EM theory and SR,where it could be shown that in a waveguide of fixed dimensions changing the value of c slightly would not result in the superluminal wave which originally travelled at 20c travelling a 20c + v. The experiment, just like my light spot example is actually a two-way light speed isotropy measurement just like the MMX, of course, giving the same null result. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Note, I have corrected wrt 'the aether' above to wrt 'the aether frame'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not a superluminal "signal". SHEESH!!! I have NEVER made any claim that information is being transferred at 20 c. And you keep missing the point that I have REPEATEDLY emphasized to you, that I have NEVER claimed that the Gagnon technique would yield positive results within the context of SR or any theory experimentally indistinguishable from SR. It would only yield positive results in the context of theories not equivalent to SR.

I would hate to see you as a grant reviewer for a proposal to perform an improved version of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Here is what I envision you would write when you encountered the theory section:

Grant proposal review. Theory section: Michelson-Morley_experiment#Beam_travel_times

The calculations in this section to support the concept of the Michelson-Morley experiment are nonsensical. I shall ignore the fact that the authors of this section have chosen to use the obsolete concept of a classical aether on the grounds that the same calculation could be done using an appropriate test theory for SR. The authors purport to calculate the effect of aether motion in the velocity of the light. They do this by assuming that you simply add the velocity of the light to the velocity of the system through the aether. What justification do they use for this? A light signal in free space travels at c with respect to the aether and at c + v (where v is the speed of the system through the aether) with respect to the system. This is a fundamental error in their claim. Of course this would be much better shown by using conventional EM theory and SR, where it could be shown that changing the value of c slightly would not result in the wave which originally travelled at c travelling at c + v.

Since SR theory states that it is intrinsically impossible for Michelson-Morley-style experiments to yield positive results, the entire concept of MMX is nonsensical. Grant proposal denied. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

No my response would be to ask proposers for any theory in which a signal (effect, wave, or whatever else you like to call it) which travels at 20c in a frame of reference in which the aether is stationary will travel at 20c + v in a frame moving with respect to the aether at -v. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Quit using that blasted word signal!

To help you out a bit you could, for example, assume that Maxwell's equations hold only in the aether frame. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

That is a contradiction in terms. Pre-Einstein, of course, that was everybody's natural assumption. But there is no electromagnetic theory capable of meeting those terms.

Would you deny the proposer for an improved version of MMX funding merely because he/she recognized the contradictions inherent in your demand? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You can use any theory you like but you have to show that this experiment has a chance of producing a non-null result. In other words you have to show that according to some theory the two waves will travel at the speeds shown in your table. Your claim above is based on what you have called classic aether theory, which could be described as the assumption that Maxwell's equations hold in the aether frame only. How do you justify your calculation above, which shows that the superluminal wave which moves at 20c in the aether frame will move at 20c + V in a frame moving at v with respect to the aether? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Galilean relativity does not apply to Maxwell's equations, period. This was an unrecognized feature of Maxwell's equations that took Einstein to recognize. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A common justification for performing MMX at ever increasing levels of precision and sensitivity is the fact that "next-generation" theories such as string theory predict breakdown of Lorentz invariance at some unknown level. Certainly Mansouri-Sexl test theory allows for the possibility for the measurement of certain forms of one-way as well as two-way anisotropy. Are you demanding that I recast the analysis of the Gagnon et al. experiment in terms of Mansouri-Sexl test theory rather than their homebrew GGT? It's a pretty unreasonable demand of yours. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The original MMX was performed to test the classical aether theory. New experiments are performed either to test some new theory out or to test an existing theory to greater precision that previously. The Gaydon experiment does neither. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, you haven't bothered to even read the Gagnon paper, as evidenced by your consistent misspelling of the name. It's very annoying. Since you have not actually read the paper, I do not believe that you are qualified when you state that "The Gaydon [sic] experiment does neither." Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

New experiments are exploratory. Nobody knows the exact form in which a "next-generation" theory will take, and test theories such as Mansouri-Sexl are merely placeholders that allow a uniform language for recording and cataloging any deviations found from those expected in SR. Have you bothered to read any of the papers coming out of, say, the Müller group? They are not performed to test out a specific new theory, the nature of which is presently unknown. Rather, they are performed to explore the limits of SR in different directions. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

But Gagnon's paper does not do that. You might as well say that you want to test the effect of holding some cheese next to a light beam to see if it slows it down. Who knows, perhaps it will work, but probably not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This whole dialog is intensely annoying. You haven't carefully read the paper under discussion ("Gaydon"), you persist in loose and sloppy language ("signal"), you repeatedly avoid answering simple questions (where is the second clock?), you force me to spend extended time on baby-level explanations which you then reject because they are baby-level, you think that all interferometers have a return path, you get SR and SR test theories mixed up, and you toss out distracting chaff. I really don't care to continue. At the very least, please try to distinguish between measurements of OWLS versus measurements of OWLS anisotropy in your one-way light speed article. That sloppiness in your presentation was the original reason that I got involved. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

How would you feel if you read an article that didn't distinguish between Michelson's measurements of the speed of light and the Michelson Morley experiment? That is exactly the feeling that I get when I read your one-way light speed article. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that I misspelled Gagnon's name and you will notice that I now use the term 'wave' rather than signal. Now having got that out of the way perhaps you can explain to me how you arrived at your figure of 20c +v in your table above. Was it just a figure plucked out of the air or was it based on a calculation using some theory. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I told you, I don't care to continue. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

No you did not, but if you do not want me to explain to you why Gagnon's experiment measured nothing at all I suggest that you try to find Tom Roberts explanation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Anybody who can rub two lines of algebra together to start a fire would know how to answer that question. It's a simple application of the Lorentz transforms. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Caridoid escape reaction

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Caridoid escape reaction.gif, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 06:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

An X-ray

In this particular case, scientific literature vastly prefers "an" (an/a ratio exceeds 30:1 on Google Books). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Needle Exchange Science

Stigmatella, I am happy to move towards dispute resolution, but before doing so I would like more information from you as to why you think there is any 'quote mining' regarding the IOM full report, which I have uniformly cited over a number of years of input into the Needle Exchange page. You have not detailed anything specifically.

A simple comparison between the few sentences that you focus on, to the exclusion of virtually everything else in the IOM full report, and the Conclusions section that I posted in full, reveals the vast difference between what you want people to understand about the IOM report, versus what the IOM wants people to understand about their report.

Can I ask, Do you not accept that the IOM makes a distinction between the science on Needle Exchange effectiveness in isolation from other prevention initiatives launched at the same time which include education and media campaigns, and alternatively the science on all of these initiatives together as a multi-component approach to HIV? To be honest, I can't see this as anything other than a very clear distinction in their document. The very reason they say that the ecological studies can't establish causality for NEP is because of the embedded nature of NEP in multi-component programs where the causal agents cannot be specifically identified. The IOM is very clear about the difference between an inconclusive science on NEP versus a modest science on NEP + other interventions.

The IOM report confirms what has been repeatedly noted in multiple studies, that needle exchange programs by themselves cannot block the spread of HIV and other blood and bodily secretion transmitted diseases. Nevertheless, the report supports the thesis that clean needle distribution in conjunction with educational programs, bleach distribution, etc. can reduce the incidence of risky behaviors. That cannot be anything but good, even though the results are not manifest in obvious reductions of HIV incidence.

The most effective way to stop HIV transmission among IDUs is to stop drug use. But that is not always possible, and it does not address other conduits of HIV spread, i.e. sexual. It is only a multi-component approach to the problem of HIV transmission that has any hope of success, and to attack a single component of that program because it is incapable by itself of solving the issue strikes me as irrational.

It is not a proven fact, but the different components of a multi-component program may be synergistic. Certainly I can present intuitively based arguments why I think needle exchange helps draw in the customers, but intuition is not science.

The question of cost-effectiveness often comes up. For example, the data shows that individual drug counseling, intensive group drug counseling, and other therapies are perhaps among the most effective, as well as most expensive, avenues towards control, but even then the gains are only modest. What happens when budgets grow tight? Sadly, these sorts of programs are often the first to go when the money falls short.

The reason this distinction is important is because in Australia here, the founder of NEPs in Australia and author of the flawed WHO 2004 review, Dr Alex Wodak, has a journal article where he calls for a new media campaign replicating the one that many claim was responsible for containing Australia's HIV. It was called the Grim Reaper ad, and Dr Wodak wants a repeat of the ad targeting Hep C, which he acknowledges NEPs have failed to prevent.

Every supporter of NSPs acknowledges that other forms of outreach are vital, such as the advertising campaigns that you mention.

This is all in the DFA literature, properly cited. Consequently, there is a real possibility that NEPs are quite limited in preventing HIV and HCV, meaning that HIV transmission is mainly from sex between drug users and those infected, not via a needle. My own take is this - with so many drug users still sharing needles despite free needles being so available to them (Australia gives dozens of clean needles to any individual at a time yet still has 65-70% HCV, about the same as the US) it becomes clear that NEP does not stop a culture of sharing amongst users which is often done quite consciously to establish brotherhood, nor does it make drug users more responsible in terms of getting more needles when they are about to run out. Afterall, I have ran out of milk at home some years ago, not because I didn't notice, but because it was too inconvenient to go out especially for it. The thesis of HIV being mainly spread by sex and not the needle has been around for a while, and is supported by the science which shows that there is still significant sharing of needles in countries with strong NEP programming as evidenced by HCV prevalence.

The IOM report, of course, is limited in its focus and does not address issues such as sexual transmission. That's a whole other can of worms.

My concern is that if Wikipedia is sanitized from the real questions and issues then it becomes complicit in a societal funding of an intervention with poor scientific results. DFA is currently suggesting that public money could go to perhaps a different mix more effective which will save more lives, which will still include NEPs, but in a better targeted way then at present and I see light in that in recognition of the science. These are not small issues.

If you will recall, I myself wrote: "In an era of limited resources and given the difficulty of evaluating the relative effectiveness of the different aspects of a multi-component attack on the problem of HIV spread among IDUs, it can legitimately be argued that the focus on NSPs may be drawing resources away from more effective channels."

Now back to the issue at hand - I absolutely accept that the IOM still supports NEP as an intervention in a multi-component setting, as I do personally, but that does not change the science, which the research addresses. I am very happy to have something on the Wikipedia page to the effect that the IOM, despite finding the science inconclusive on NEP in isolation, nevertheless supports NEPs on the basis of the modest evidence supporting the multi-component programs of which NEP are a part.

So please, I ask this one question - do you accept there is a difference in the IOM report between NEPs in isolation or otherwise, and if so, how is my text wrong? I would appreciate an answer before going to dispute resolution.Minphie (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I object to focusing exclusively on the few sentences in the IOM report which state that NSPs in isolation, despite reducing HIV risk behaviors, have no proven effectiveness in reducing overall HIV incidence. That distorts the whole message of the IOM report, which stresses the importance of a multi-component approach which would include needle exchange.

Just one additional thought that may make my thinking on the science clearer to you. The IOM report discusses two different sciences on NEPs and HIV - Needle exchange studies excluding confounders and needle exchange studies including confounders. I believe that Wikipedia would always give priority to science which excludes confounders (NEP in isolation) over that which fails to exclude them. This is a very important driver of anything I have put on the page regarding the IOM review.Minphie (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Reductionist and holistic approaches are both important. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I hope you realize that we are not really that far apart in our beliefs. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiThanks

Just want to say thank you for the work you have completed on the NEP page, --Soulparadox (talk) 08:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Stigmatella, work commitments have prevented me doing anything in the last couple of weeks with the issues on the NEP page until now. I will do a thorough check of your suggestions regarding the 'anti' section of the NEP page, which I have not yet had time to read, in the days ahead. My proposal for text on the substantial issues I outlined in my last communication above, after reviewing your comments and having just had a quick look at the content on the page at present, is as follows, and if you have reservations we can still seek the conflict res process you first suggested – 1. To replace the second paragraph currently about the WHO 2004 review with a statement about the US Institute of Medicine/Tilson review, which Palmateer titles ‘the most recent and rigorous’ (Monograph 10 EMCDDA p 126), reproducing their findings that there is moderate evidence supporting a reduction in self-reported risk behaviors from multi-component HIV prevention programs which include NEPs but that the evidence for the effect of NEPs on HIV incidence is limited and inconclusive. Because causality is an issue for the ecological studies as per IOM conclusion 3.4 on p 149 it would be best, in my view, to keep this in the research section where it is presently described 2. To then reinstate the sentence that previously appeared in the page on the two Palmateer initiated reviews. 3. I believe that it is untenable to include Wodak and Cooney's WHO review because of the errors within it, which can readily be verified, and the EMCDDA Monograph recognizes this in its statement that “Gibson et al. (2001) reviewed studies published up until 1999, all of which were covered in the reviews discussed above. They gave consideration to potential bias in studies with negative results, but not for those with protective findings. They concluded that there is ‘Substantial evidence that syringe exchange programmes are effective in preventing [HIV risk behaviour and] HIV seroconversion among IDU’ (p. 1338). However, as for Wodak and Cooney, their conclusions seemed inconsistent with the HIV studies reviewed.” The paragraph on Wodak/Cooney is therefore best removed.

4. Finally, I believe that if the Wikipedia content is to be perceived as neutral that my previous sentence ‘The Palmateer reviews of reviews, though, have drawn some criticism.’ needs to remain. The statement is by the leading drug prevention organisation in terms of scientific analysis of drug interventions within the world’s peak drug prevention organisation, the World Federation Against Drugs [1]. It is the organisation which has been cited most by Australian Parliamentary inquiries in terms of analysis of scientific studies in the world of drug policy and the author of one of the four core Palmateer studies, Kerstin Kall, is one of their advisors.

In the research section I believe the text at present is reading well, but should have the previous paragraph on Drug Free Australia’s critique of the Palmateer reviews included. Their critique has not been falsified – the Palmateer-initiated reviews of reviews do indeed upgrade the IOM classification from the most authoritative review's 'inconclusive' finding to ‘tentative’ without adding any new data, and nowhere do they spell out the difference between multi-component programs including NEPs for which a tentative finding is acceptable versus the effectiveness of NEPs on HIV incidence where a tentative finding is not acceptable. If Wikipedia wants to be neutral this text should be there. The paragraph makes up less than 20% of the section when added, and can’t be conceived as giving too much weight to the issue. My understanding of Wikipedia is that it seeks on controversial and politicized issues to ensure that all significant views are represented rather than seeking to be partisan to one view only, or hide significant issues from its reading public.Minphie (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Condensed matter physics

Hey there - long ago you were the guy who reviewed Condensed matter physics for GA. Thanks again for that! I am now planning to push it towards FAC, and was wondering if you had time to expand on some of your suggestions during the GAC. You can add in any comments/suggestions here. Cheers! SPat ^talk 05:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Third Opinion on Needle Exchange Science

Finally have had the time to list a 3O request. [2] We may be able to find a way forward. Minphie (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"If more than two editors are involved, 3O is not appropriate."

Please note on the 3O page where it states: "If more than two editors are involved, 3O is not appropriate."

In opposition to you, active members in this dispute include Gabbe, Steinberger, Doc James, Soulparadox, Ohiostandard as well as myself. All of us agree that Drug Free Australia (DFA) is non-MEDRS-compliant, and we agree that, with an occasional exception, the great bulk of material published in the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice (JGDPP) is non-MEDRS-compliant. We agree that DFA is an advocacy group and that JDGPP is the publication organ of an advocacy group. Stigmatella aurantiaca Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Mediation - do we agree?

Stigmatella, I note that Third Opinion is of the view that our divergence of opinion on the US IOM and Palmateer studies is too complex for anything but mediation. Are you agreeable to pursuing this now? Minphie (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, Minphie, that you have a history of not abiding by consensus. For example, Gabbe, Steinberger, Doc James, Soulparadox, Ohiostandard and I have all agreed that DFA is an advocacy group and is not MEDRS-compliant, yet you have persisted in your attempts to use DFA materials to discredit scientific publications with which you are in political/moral/ethical/religious disagreement. There is nothing wrong with being in political/moral/ethical/religious disagreement. I truly mean it when I say that I agree with Humphreys and Piot (2012) when they write "Scientific evidence alone is not sufficient basis for health policy."

What I have objected to is (1) your taking a conservative scientific refusal in the US IOM report to overinterpret the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of NSPs as being equivalent to a statement that NSPs are ineffective, and (2) focusing on those sentences in the US IOM report to the exclusion of everything else, and in so doing, completely misrepresenting the report's conclusions.

What is your reaction to the following excerpts from Australia's National Needle and Syringe Programs Strategic Framework 2010-2014?

2.3 NSPs - A Successful Public Health Response

The value of the Program as an evidence-based public health response to the risk of BBV transmission associated with injecting drug use is substantial. NSPs have been endorsed by the WHO, the UNAIDS, and the UNODC as an essential public health response to ensure “that drug users have their own injecting equipment and do not share it with others, that the circulation time of used needles and syringes is reduced, and that used equipment is disposed of safely” (WHO, 2004).

Australia’s first NSP was trialled in New South Wales in 1986 with the provision of NSP services becoming New South Wales Government policy in early 1987 and the remaining states and territories implementing NSPs soon after via primary, secondary and pharmacy outlets (Dolan et al., 2005). This occurred following the discovery of HIV and the potential threat that this virus posed to the Australian community. The establishment of NSPs throughout Australia would not have been possible without bipartisan political support which continues to be an important element in the continuing existence and operation of NSPs.

In Australia the Program is the single most important and cost-effective strategy in reducing drug-related harms among IDUs. Australian Governments invested $130 million in NSPs between 1991 and 2000 resulting in the prevention of an estimated 25,000 HIV infections and 21,000 HCV infections, with savings from avoided treatment costs of up to $7.8 billion (Health Outcomes International et al., 2002). In the decade 2000-2009, the gross funding for NSPs was $243 million. This investment yielded healthcare cost savings of $1.28 billion; a gain of approximately 140,000 Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs); and a net cost saving of $1.03 billion. During this time, NSPs have averted 32,061 new HIV infections and 96,918 new HCV infections (NCHECR, 2009).

Historically some communities have been resistant to the establishment of NSPs, even though Dolan et al. (2005) note that based on international and national evidence the Program does not:

• encourage more frequent injection of drugs;
• increase recruitment of new IDUs;
• increase crime or violence; or
• increase the number of discarded needles and syringes in public places.

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Stigmatella, I have stood against the consensus of Steinberger, Soul Paradox, Doc James etc because they have clearly demonstrated that they are united in obstructing valid Wikipedia content from getting onto pages such as the Needle Exchange Programme page, even if that content is totally valid, factual and reliably sourced. As can be clearly seen from their long campaign to keep Kall et al. off the Needle Exchange Programme page, saying that it could not be cited because it was from a non-MEDRS source (the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice [JGDPP]), they have some other motivation than allowing Wikipedia to neutrally present both sides, as common fairness demands, of what is a highly-conflicted issue politically. It is interesting that two major reviews of reviews, those by the UK NICE group referenced by the EMCDDA Monograph and then the EMCDDA Monograph itself both see Kall et al as one of only four reviews to make their final cull out of a good many more that were not rigorous enough. And if you have a look at the opposition of Steinberger, Doc James and co to Kall et al long after it had become plain that NICE and EMCDDA were not the least concerned whether it appeared in the JGDPP or elsewhere it becomes clear that the reason they wanted to keep it off the Wikipedia page had nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. That much is evidenced and clear.

You reference some material on NEP from the Australian Strategic Framework. But can you see how much error is in the Framework document you quote. Those tens of thousands of HCV deaths that NEPs are meant to have saved according to that Framework, when the science shows that NEPs have no demonstrated effectiveness in reducing HCV, and when Dr Wodak who wrote the 2004 WHO review admits, in an article that I have previously cited a number of times on the Talk page, that NEPs are not effective in controlling HCV and there is a need for some other strategy - do you not see that the Framework is dealing in illusion and not reality? And are Wikipedia readers to be given illusion? Why? And why should I let Steinberger, Doc James or Soul Paradox get away with it?

I believe it is time to go to mediation. What about you? Minphie (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yet again, you confuse the lack of statistical power of most studies to quantitate the standalone effect of NSPs on HCV incidence levels, with proof that NSPs are ineffective and/or counterproductive. Most studies agree that as a standalone intervention, NSPs do not result in a large enough decrease in HCV incidence to show up above statistical noise levels. Opiate-Replacement Therapy (ORT) as a standalone intervention can result in modest decreases in HCV incidence. Combination approaches using multiple interventions work far better than single interventions alone. In a UK study, ORT was combined with enhanced HCV prevention counseling. In an Amsterdam study, ORT was combined with full NSP participation. Here is a quote from a recent review:

"In 2 studies, investigators examined the effect of participation in multicomponent interventions [Table 1f]. In the United Kingdom study, ORT combined with enhanced HCV prevention counseling was compared with ORT alone; HCV seroconversion was lower among those in the combined intervention group (9.1/100 PY vs 17.2/100 PY in the ORT alone group; P > .05) [52]. In the Amsterdam study, ‘‘full participation in harm reduction’’—defined as .60 mg methadone per day and always using SEP—was compared with ‘‘less than full harm reduction’’ or no harm reduction [12]. HCV incidence was 3.5/100 PY in the full–harm-reduction group compared with 23.9/100 PY in other study participants. As shown in Table 2f, the pooled RR was .25 (95% CI, .07–.83). Although the Q value was not significant, I² was 55%." Hagan et al. 2011

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Stigmatella, a. my disputed text discusses the effectiveness of NEPs alone on HIV incidence as reviewed by the US IOM and the Palmateer-initiated studies b. I have indeed additionally covered NEPs in a multi-component setting in my text which you have deleted c. at no place have I ever said that inconclusive means that NEPs, on the weight of study evidence, increase HIV incidence, but rather that the science is that they neither increase nor reduce, on balance of all studies, HIV incidence d. The Wodak/Cooney study you have written into the first few paragraphs incorrectly finds a positive effect for NEPs when the science is inconclusive (and not negative as you keep on erroneously interpreting). Are you ready for this to go to mediation? Minphie (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Needle Exchange Programme:Talk". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 06:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Bacteria

I removed these two post scripts from the DRN notice board as being off-point. The text on the board should be kept directly focused on the issues. If you wish to post directly to Charmlet's talk page about these or other matters, please feel free to do so. --Bejnar (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I've just finished converting this entry from a stub into a fully-fleshed article that you might find fun to read. I'm wondering, though, does my working on this article count as WP:COI???   :-)   — Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

P.P.S. Be sure that you take a look at some of the videos in the external links. Can bacteria really behave like that? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

"Coefficient of difficulty" in Giant Magellan Telescope

Thanks for the note re: my calling "coefficient of difficulty" in Giant Magellan Telescope a "fake" term (I haven't seen that method of communication before; interesting).

I went a-Googling for the term, and found that, although most of the hits were synthetic dictionary hits (e.g. defining "coefficient" and "difficulty", but not both together), there were some real references. So, I must concede that it is indeed a real, albeit very obscure, term. However, if you ignore my snide edit comment, I still think removing the term was the right thing to do. It doesn't add anything useful to the article; it just adds a bit of confusion. However, if you feel strongly otherwise, I would have no problem with your restoring it. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I agreed with removal of the term, which is why I didn't try to restore it. But I was down to my last few available characters in the comment, and it didn't seem worth it to open up a whole new Talk section about this trifling matter. Cheers! :-) Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Needle exchange programme". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 3 October 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 10:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Needle exchange programme, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Needle exchange programme, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, User:Sunray (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

We are ready to proceed. Please sign in on the case talk page here. Sunray (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

On Nov 11 you mentioned that you had a family emergency. How are things now? Could you let us know when you will be able to rejoin the mediation? Sunray (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

New article: Myron Mathisson

Thanks once again for the pdf link about Myron Mathisson on talk:Józef Lubański.

I google-translated the Polish article on Mathisson into English, with tweaks and additional links. If you have any edits to make, by all means go ahead. Thanks, M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 10:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

DGG

Thanks for your note about Novacam, but I saw it a little late--my main account is User:DGG -- User:DGG (NYPL) is the non-admin account I use when I'm away from my regular computer. (such as when I'm at NYPL-Performing Arts as Wikipedian in residence) 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Another beer for you!

For the cooks ;-) - DVdm (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

sockpuppet page

I tried to do as you suggested and made this here [3]. I don't know what is reasonable evidence here. So if that is awful, can you suggest how to clean it up, or just delete it to save people's time? Thanks. DefnerBly (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You've done as well as you can do. Administrators have access to tools that assist them in making reasonable deductions about possible relationships between users without violating their anonymity. So we will just have to wait and see. I've communicated with this/these users before on different issues. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutron

Hi! I've noticed your posting regarding neutron. You said that you could provide more aspects. More aspects would be useful for clarification. A detailed analysis of the (3-4) arguments against the proton-electron structure should be considered and also the nature of some hidden assumption involved should be made explicit.

Replies to arguments:

• 1) The first argument involves the hidden assumption that a bound state of neutrino should be same as of a free neutrino. For the generation of neutrino at the moment of neutron decay see 4)

WHAT bound state of a neutrino? Through WHAT unknown forces do you propose that the neutrino can be bound? If you want to postulate completely hypothetical, unknown new forces capable of binding a neutrino, you need evidence and a viable alternative proposal. You won't find any evidence, and you have no viable alternative proposal.

• 2) Regarding Heisenberg principle it is another hidden assumption that this principle must apply inside neutron. This necessity does not follow any other statement and has the status of a conjecture (to be proven).

Again, it is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence that the HUP does not always hold, and to show how your hypothesis fits in with known physics.

• 3) The third argument assumes the involvement of strong force. However given the elusive nature of nuclear forces which haven't been fully characterized quantitatively this argument is weakened.

What other forces do you hypothesize could exist?

• 4) Concerning the generation of electron and neutrino in decay, there is the possibility of just neutrino being generated by some (unspecified) mechanism, not necessarily the electron.--188.26.22.131 (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

So, you have no theory, and are just trying to blow chaff in my direction, citing "unspecified" mechanisms. The fact that you haven't the foggiest clue what could be happening, does not mean that other people are equally ignorant.

Handwaving does not provide the basis of a viable alternative theory. Sorry. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to blow chaff in your direction. Considering other possibilities are part of rigorous scientific procedures.

4)For instance it is known that neutrino and electron come from the decay of W- boson which could be involved.

1)Regarding forces, possible forces involved could be gravitational, as it is known that additional terms to Newton's expression have been proposed. These could act at molecular but also nuclear and neutron level.

I noticed you said that you had more arguments which you didn't deploy. Could you mention those additional arguments?--188.26.22.131 (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

COI Comment

Your user page asks whether there is a possible conflict of interest. Either the emailer was taking the humor on your user page seriously, or they were not taking it seriously. Either way, it makes as much sense as the "unspecified mechanism". Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Novacam technologies

I made what I thought was an appropriate comment on the talk page there, and copied it to the relevant user page. Thanks for calling it to my attention. ( User:DGG and User:DGG (NYPL) are of course the same person, depending on whether I am using a secure or an unsecure connection. It's best to communicate with me as User:DGG, because I see that by far the more often. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)