User talk:Flegelpuss

Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! South Bay (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the right place for rewriting history. Most historians say that Einstein and not Poincaré developed SR. See the discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Poincare better than Einstein edits by Schlafly?.....--D.H (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You recently said the following: "I think we both agree that Poincaré invented at least 90% of special relativity before Einstein. (light synchronisation, relativity principle, philosophical relativity of time, etc.). Well, this is also the opinion of most (not all) historians of science." Why are you contradicting yourself here? Please quit mass-undoing my painstaking factual corrections and removal of POV language. (BTW, I'd include Lorentz and others in that 90% along with Poincaré, albeit it can't be called "relativity" theory until Poincaré). Flegelpuss (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Poincaré stopped shortly before inventing the complete theory. He remained the notion of a stationary aether, distinguished between true and local time etc. BTW: My or your opinion is totally irrelevant. Wikipedia has to avoid original research and must rely on secondary sources. And your edits are in contradiction of the overwhelming majority of those sources. So please stop. (See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Poincaré-POV-pushing.) --D.H (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of "complete theory" is arbitrary. Einstein's version is experimentally indistinguishable from Poincare's and Lorentz's, it just appears to use fewer axioms. The "ether" part is no more important than different quantum mechanical interpretations. If Many Worlds became the dominant paradigm, Heisenberg and Schroedinger would be still be considered the main discoverers of QM (of course that leaves out many important predecessors and successors there too). You haven't cited any sources that factually contradict any of my edits. Some of them are obvious POV edits, others are factual disputes. Your mass-undoing shows that you haven't carefully thought about them as I have. Please stop the mass-undos. If you have good justification for undoing any _particular_ careful edit I have made, that is fair game, but you're out of bounds with the mass-undos. Flegelpuss (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW by "obvious POV edits", I mean taking out obviously subjective POV nonsense, like calling Einstein's version of the theory (as opposed to his predecessors that invented "90%" of SR, or successors like Minkowski) "radical", "fundamental", and other such nonsense-phrases that have no places in neutral POV articles. Flegelpuss (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the day will come, when it is accepted by most historians that there is no essential/radical difference between the Poincaré-Lorentz ether theory and special relativity. But for now, this is not the case and therefore we cannot present this view in Wikipedia. You asked me for references - the articles contain a lot of them (Pais, Holton, Miller, Galison, etc.), read them. BTW: It was you who started with mass edits without using references - I've provided a lot of them. (The only undisputed thing you contributed was the fact, that in Einstein's time the atom concept was widely used, this is in fact correct). BTW: The articles already present the brilliant contributions of Poincaré to relativity - I can remember the time when Poincaré's contributions were not even mentioned. --D.H (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of my edits was carefully thought out and based on sources already referenced in the Wikipedia articles (such as the fact, which is not in dispute, that Poincaré was the first to explain Lorentz in terms of the principles of relativity), or based on removing POV. That POV may be "accepted by most historians" is not nearly good enough to portray it as fact when it is obviously in dispute. Again, if you dispute a particular edit I made I am happy to reconsider it, but thank you for stopping the mass-undos. Flegelpuss (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, your edits contradict currently accepted views - and this mainstream view is that Poincaré uses the relativity principle to hide the aether, while Einstein invented a "radical" new theory of space and time - and only this counts on WP. So it's clear that your edits will reverted soon (by me or by others). There is simply no room for further discussion, unless most historians change their view on this subject. --D.H (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated a discussion at the above header. Please contribute. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarise yourself with WP:BLP (yes I know; its ironic) and (if you keep going at this rate) [{WP:3RR]] too William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read BLP and my edits are in perfect compliance with it. Even if a portion of it were out of compliance you should edit that portion of this information about highly important documentation about Phil Jones instead of auto-undoing. Stop censoring highly notable and very well documented facts about these public persons.

If you go on much longer you'll be blocked for 3RR. Please see sense and stop William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go:

Climategate

Auswiger (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Flegelpuss. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 02:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea. I'm not exactly confident that problems won't arise again, unfortunately. Thanks for your help. Drolz⁰⁹ 08:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent find. My guess is that the cabal will continue to apply its double RS standard and claim that they are not a notable scientific source or whatever. In any event, they have already arranged for a page about a developing story to be locked for a week, which is beyond idiotic, but clearly there are very few means of obstruction that they will not pursue. Drolz⁰⁹ 07:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt they can successfully argue against this Daily Mail news story as a source. They'll probably argue against much coverage of it based on undue weight WP:Undue Weight which is the more subjective stance they fall back on -- if the article is not highly slanted towards AGW propaganda, it is giving "undue weight" to "deniers". And they may reiterate the left-wing spin that the scandal is about the hacking and not the contents. Flegelpuss (talk) 07:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, unfortunately I'm not sure they need to 'successfully' argue anything, when they can very successfully mau-mau their way to the article of their dreams. Drolz⁰⁹ 11:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please respond on Talk:Timothy F. Ball‎. • Ling.Nut 10:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]