User talk:Geoffrey.landis/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 15:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Way back when, you were working on the beam-powered propulsion page and you added something about work being based on something originally by Marx. Since I'm pretty sure you didn't mean Karl Marx, can you add a first name or something to clear up the reference? Avram (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Geoffrey! Why did you delete the word "window"? Of course it is an English word now but the reason why it was tought by professors as beeing German ist that in the Northern German dialect it is the proper word for the small round windows under the roof. --Ruk 16:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted because it is an English word.

If the topic is "English words that originated from German roots long ago," well, the entire English language has Germanic roots. You will have to add about a hundred thousand words, including common words like man, house, is, mine, & and.

Hi Geoffery. When deleting two or more sentences, unless they are vandalism, can you not mark the edit as minor? The definition of "minor edit" can be found here. Thanks. Rintrah 19:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I read the page and now have revised my understanding of Wikipedia's official definition of "minor"! Geoffrey.landis 21:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Back in March, you added a link to a creationist website - http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i2/helium.asp - to Atmospheric escape. Maybe there's another source somewhere on the helium problem that doesn't conclude that, "It certainly seems that the creationist position is correct, on the basis of the latest observational evidence. ..."?
—wwoods 18:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops-- don't think I read through the whole article. I was just looking for a cite for the equation, and stopped reading further once I got to the part I was looking for, the Jeans escape equation. Geoffrey.landis 22:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

At first I reverted your edit to New Coke, thinking someone just hadn't read the whole article. But then I noticed that, indeed, the entire subsection devoted to the reintroduction of Classic Coke was gone, and indeed a vandal[1] had defaced it, and another user dealt with it by simply deleting the vandalism without reverting it[2]. Over a month ago.

The "reversal" section is now back in the article. Thanks for helping~ Daniel Case 17:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

wow, that's an odd vandalism Geoffrey.landis 21:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be low:

Edit summary usage for Geoffrey.landis: 47% for major edits and 62% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Berea OH.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You might be coherent to another science person. But to me, you were totally uncoherent. So, no mutual coherence.

Hey, Geoffrey? Do you have a source corroborating the statement that Zelazney's short story inspired an aspect of Pogue's screenplay other than IMDb, such as an interview with the writer? I'm concerned that perhaps the information in IMDb is the result of speculation on the part of an IMDb contributor, based on the similarities between the short story and the DragonHeart plot element. Roundelais 19:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Having read the story and seen the movie, I'd say that the text of the story is more than adequate corroboration. Geoffrey.landis 02:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds rather like original research. I don't think it's reasonable to assert that a writer derived inspiration from another piece of fiction unless the author has admitted it, and it's not really a good idea to call the story 'source material' when you don't have proof that the writer has ever even read the story in question. Unless there's a word-for-word dialogue duplication or communication from one of the two writers backing it up, the only claim you can really make is that the gimmick is similar, not that Pogue lifted the concept wholesale from Zelazny. Roundelais 18:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I will disagree with you here. Have you read the story? Geoffrey.landis 13:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to, but apparently my public library doesn't have any of the anthologies where it's featured. It might take some time to track down a copy of the text. Despite similarities in the storylines, if there isn't documentation of an instance where Pogue admits to having read the story, or where Zelazny complains that his idea was stolen, then your claim is pure speculation or original research by Wikipedia standards. IMDb isn't a terribly reliable source, as most of the data is submitted by users and not thoroughly researched for authenticity by the staff. If you wanted to state on Wikipedia that the partnership plot device bears a striking resemblence to Zelazny's story, I'd have no problem with that. Asserting that the writer definitely used the story as source material for the screenplay when there are no secondary sources to support that view is another matter. Roundelais 21:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, until you started this thread, I didn't realize that there was any controversy about the source material. In fact, other than your comments, I still don't know that there's any controversy-- I've never heard anybody (other than you) suggest that "The George Business" is not source material for Dragonheart. When I get some time I'll look at various movie books around the house and see if there's a better citation to quote, but right at the moment, time is at a premium Geoffrey.landis 23:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Though the theory is likely accepted as fact in the circles where you travel, calling "The George Business" 'uncredited source material' is tantamount to an accusation of copyright infringement or plagiarism in a forum that sets high value on NPOV. By Wikipedia standards, "widely accepted" and "provable" are not synonymous.

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).

From Wikipedia:Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.

From Wikipedia:No original research: Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article...In general, the most reliable sources are books, journals, magazines, and mainstream newspapers; published by university presses or known publishing houses. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable...

As for controversy, I'm not so much disputing the idea that Pogue drew inspiration from "The George Business" as the question of whether it's Verifiable by Wikipedia standards. Dogpile and Google searches turn up A) the Wikipedia articles on Dragonheart and Unicorn Variations, due to the content you added, B) the IMDb reference you used (which has not neccessarily been verified) and C) a couple of instances of fan speculation. Based on the evidence available so far, the most that could truthfully be claimed is that IMDb reports the short story as Source Material.

I agree that there's a good possibility that Pogue has read "The George Business," and that he incorporated the concept into his screenplay. However, there is no documented proof, and separate writers have been known to have strikingly similar ideas in the past without having been exposed to each others' work. Without such proof, Wikipedia should not assert that one writer used another writer's as 'uncredited source material.' Roundelais 17:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not convinced; the only person who seems to be arguing is you. Nevertheless, I have rewritten the paragraph in question to now state that the movie has a plot similar to the story, rather than "is based on" the story. Geoffrey.landis 00:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think your addition of actress Erin O'Brien's middle name (Joanne) to the title of her article confuses the issue since she never used her middle name in billing or in any context. While it is a common Irish name, she's certainly the only actress by that name to achieve her level of notoriety. Skymasterson 17:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Erin O'Brien" already redirects to Erin Joanne O'Brien, so anybody looking won't have any trouble finding her. Since there are four actresses named Erin O'Brien--plus Erin O'Brien-Moore-- this seemed to me a straightforward method to keep them separate. However, if you think it would be more logical to rename the page "Erin O'Brien (actress)," I won't stop you. Geoffrey.landis 18:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

According to my notes I created an article on Mac's back's bookstore at 10:18; at 10:19, according to the record, you tagged for speedy deletion.

Please note the following text from the Wikipedia article on speedy deletion Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion: "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete. Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criteria the page meets, and consider notifying the page's creator."

In my opinion, one minute qualifies as "too soon."

Geoffrey.landis 02:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• In my defense, the page didn't look incomplete; it looked like a complete page for a local bookstore. If you feel the article as it was can be improved, it can be recreated by posting at Wikipedia:Undeletion. Usually when I'm creating an article, I create it and work on it under my user space, like at User:Eaolson/PageName and move it to the main namespace when it is ready. eaolson 03:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Eaolson, you deleted the page one minute after the first two sentences were posted. ONE MINUTE. In precisely what way do you believe that this action followed the Wikipedia speedy deletion policy "try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation"? What do you do, camp on new articles creation so you can be the first to delete the instant something new shows up?

Let me also point out that the speedy deletion policy suggests "notifying the page's creator." I notice that you didn't do that, either. Wikipedia also has a policy "Wikipedia:Assume good faith"-- this is apparently yet another Wikipedia policy you've personally decided is not worth following. Geoffrey.landis 16:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, please calm down and don't make personal attacks. I didn't delete the page. I tagged it with {{db-corp}}. An admin reviewed the speedy delete nomination and actually deleted it. The article met speedy delete criteria WP:CSD#A7, specifically it was an article about a business, yet made no assertion as to the notability of the business. As I recall, the article was for a local bookstore and the only real information about the business was that it was an unofficial meeting place for some group or another. The speedy delete tag was well within WP policy.

Yes, I was doing newpage patrolling. When I did your article, I think I speedy delete tagged several bands that have never released an album and exist only on MySpace, an article saying how much some guy likes his girlfriend, and another about the best Mom in the country.

I've asked for an deletion review. If it's restored, that will give you the opportunity to improve the article. eaolson 17:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If you harras Eaolson one more time over this I will block you. Clear? Anyway, the article was deleted by an administrator, your beef belongs elsewhere. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC. Urgh.. I guess that I overreacted. I'm perhaps oversensitive to harassment and GWH is right, none of your actions were over the line but it is clear that eaolson felt pressured by your comments to him. Nevertheless, the warning was OTT. Sorry for the overreaction. Thanks GWH for the injection of sanity. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, none of the comments on Eaolson's talk page or here is an actionable personal attack or harrassment per Wikipedia standards, Spartaz. Please do not threaten people with blocking spuriously. Georgewilliamherbert 19:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't intended for my comments to rise to the threshold of personal attack; nevertheless, let me apologize for writing in haste, and note that my comments stemmed from some amount of frustration over having been listed for deletion before I'd barely finished typing. In any case, Eaolson (on his user page) has noted that he has asked for an deletion review, and I accept that as a good-faith effort on his part to resolve the problem gracefully. Geoffrey.landis 20:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There is some symmetry to pretty much everyone involved in this acknowledging some error (lot of it in my case). This must be a wiki record as mostly we fall over each other to deny responsibility for our mistakes - thank you for taking this in such good spirit. I went and had a look at the article as it was before deletion to see whether or not it was salvagable. I'm sorry but the article doesn't have a hope of surviving an afd as it was. The issue is notability and lack of reliable sources. I'm guessing that its not notable for the book selling business but notable because of its connection to the literary scene. I guess that this boils down to whether you know of any reliable sources we could use to assert notability. If you can come up with a couple that pass the guideline I'll undelete this for you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, at the moment my feeling is to hell with it. Geoffrey.landis 22:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Geoffrey!

Good, good. I noticed from reading your talk page that you had gotten somewhat upset last month - deletions, etc - and I was worried that you had decided to leave the project. Then I checked your contribs, and I saw that you're still here. Glad to see it.

Well, it was a useful reminder that one shouldn't assume that there will be any sort of call for discussion or consensus on Wikipedia, since it takes just two people on Wikipedia to delete somebody's work with no warning, no discussion, and no archive. I would call this a flaw in Wikipedia-- particularly since it seem to be done at 2am Eastern time, so when you wake up there's no trace that the article had ever existed-- but Wikipedia seems to consider this just business as usual. So I took it as a warning not to take Wikipedia too seriously; anything you write can get erased at any time.

Incidentally... in the mid-90s, I acquired a few boxes full-to-the-brim of Analogs and IASfms at a garage sale. In one of them was a story about... about a modern civilization, very like ours, that had started using magic, and was doing so in a technological, scientific way. One scene I recall had a character walking through snowfall, with a spell that stopped snow from existing within a few feet of his head... this worked just fine until he walked under a tree with branches bent under the weight of the snow. Those branches, suddenly freed of snow, snapped upwards, and hit the branches above them, dislodging the snow, and those branches snapped upwards, and those branches snapped upwards, and so on, and the sudden treeful of snow overloaded the spell and all the snow fell on him at once. Also an offhand mention of another character who was going to travel to Venus so that she could study the Venus elemental, as compared to the Earth elemental...

this was your story Elemental, yes? DS 13:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep-- in fact, that was my first story. Geoffrey.landis 03:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Geoffrey! I understand your active/passive distinction, but adding your own name to an article (as opposed to a citation or reference) is considered suspect on Wikipedia, since it has lead to many abuses. Perhaps you could make it active without adding your own name (I can try this), or suggest the change on the talk page and see what others think? LouScheffer 21:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Geoffrey! You wrote "And, yes, I do find it a little disconcerting to find an article with a paragraph discussing my work, carefully written and rewritten in such a way to avoid mentioning my name." I feel exactly the opposite - though I'm the author of some of the other ideas expressed in the same article, I always find it uncomfortable when the author (including myself) is mentioned. This may influence the reader, consciously or unconsciously, to form their impression based on the author, not the idea. This is of course the reasoning behind blind review, which I strongly favor, and also correlates with my experience. And if you want to form your opinion based on the author, it's just a click away (the wikipedia references are very good about this). But you need to make some explicit effort to do this, which may help reduce biases. Anyway, my 2 cents... LouScheffer 07:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• it's an amusing theory of writing, but that's not the style in which enclopedia articles are typically written. "Person A proposed theory B based on considerations C" is much more straightforward than the roundabout phrasing. Geoffrey.landis 04:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Geoffrey, Keith Henson here. We've met or at least been a few places at the some time. Developing problem with Wikipedia is that the place is being overrun by wiki lawyers who don't have a clue about the subjects. They are, however, anal retentive about enforcing wiki policy even if they don't even understand the reasons for the policy. There is more here if you are interested. [3]

The reason I came here was from following a link from solar power satellites, Thinned array curse that you wrote.

I have just started a wiki off the Wikipedia to organize thoughts/numbers/physics about a moving cable space elevator sized to build SPS in large numbers and would definitely appreciate your help. Email me if you want a pointer. hkhenson@rogers.com Keith Henson 21:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Keith-- Don't know if I have much free time available, but sure, send me a link. Geoffrey.landis 04:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess we will leave it out for now due to lack of documentation from available primary sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree; it's not central to the article anyway. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A userbox is a graphic with a short description that is used to describe a user. It is for fun and it is not necessary. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(note: this text was originally on the page "User talk:Hrafn". Hrafn deleted this text from his page and pasted it here. The context for this is that Hrafn reverted a change I'd made to the page Objections to Evolution, where I had deleted an incorrect statement about gravity.)

nb., I just deleted a stack of comments from Hrafn with his opinions about the previous two sentences. I have no idea who Hrafn is, but I am finding him tedious, and have little interest in engaging in dialogue with him here. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

-=-=-=-=-

(Hrafn wrote:) WP:SOAPBOX rant returned to sender (I have no use for it)

Let me get this straight. Some idiot adds this text to the "Objections to Evolution" page and you don't revert it: "For example, logic and mathematics can prove that the chance that the earth has randomly provided the exact environment needed for any kind of life in the universe is less than one in 100 trillion. However, science, not being held to the same standards of logic or mathematics, needs only to observe, in far less mathematical or logical terms, certain phenomena to produce "proof." The confusion arises, then, in that the colloquial meaning of proof is simply "compelling evidence", in which case scientists would indeed consider evolution "proven", whereas mathematicans and logicians would not."

...but when the same article states that the theory of gravity is so broad and welll accepted that it's hard to think of an experiment that would disprove it, making it an unfalsifiable theory, and I delete that text... you race to skip right over the claptrap written by the creationist idiot, and revert that??

I'm sorry, what the hell is up with this gravity-denier business? Gravity is a testable theory. Get used to it. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a gravity denier. Can you think of a new experiment (i.e. one that has not already been attempted numerous times, with results that confirm gravity) that could disprove gravity? I doubt it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And I can only revert what I can see -- I hadn't updated my watchlist, so I didn't know about the recent cruft. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

On the section "unfalsifiability" you have repeatedly reverted the article to state that gravitation is the prime (in fact, only) example of a theory that it's "difficult to imagine any evidence that could disprove it." Since this is in the section on unfalsifiability, it's pretty much impossible to read this as anything other than a statement that theories of gravitation are unfalsifiable, thus denying that they are scientific theories at all (at least if you accept Popper's definitions.) I'd call this being a denier. In fact, not only can theories of gravity indeed be falsified, they have been falsified. Newton's gravity has been falsified by a large raft of experiments-- check out Clifford Will's review, for example. Gravity experiments are being done all the time-- there is a large community looking to find flaws in GR experimentally; try going to the experimental relativity section at any April APS meeting. (With luck, someday one of them will succeed). Geoffrey.landis (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Get a clue! (1) I have not "repeatedly reverted the article" on this issue -- I have done so only once. (2) The version I reverted to did not state "that gravitation is the prime (in fact, only) example of a theory that it's 'difficult to imagine any evidence that could disprove it.'" Either gain a consensus behind a change on the article talkpage or bugger off. Either way, stop bothering me here with fallacious accusations. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies; I noted several reversions by you to the section; but following down through the rather tangled history,I see you are right, the other reverts were to different parts of the section. However, I nevertheless find myself completely baffled; this should be be a completely uncontroversial edit. 'Why are people so adamant about putting this statement about theories of gravity into an article about evolution??? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Because Creationists like to pretend that evolution (including the facts of it, like transitional fossils, genetic evidence, etc, etc) doesn't exist -- but would have a great deal of difficulty denying gravity -- which makes it a powerful analogy. If you think that the analogy has been mis-framed in this context, then suggest a more accurate framing. Do not simply try to delete it, or you will keep on getting reverted. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You are apparently unaware of this, but right now there is a concerted war against truth going on. One of the contentions in this war is the proposition that science has no value; it is purely a social construct, and the "evidence" that is adduced to support this is the purported "fact" that scientists do not follow a scientific methodology; scientific facts are not falsifiable, and in general it's all made up stuff so you can ignore it. For reasons that I do not understand, you seem to be attempting to slide into the "objections to evolution" article a statement to this effect. Oh, sure, theories of gravity are examples of a theorys that are so constructed that you can't even think of an experiment that can falsify it. The problem is that this is just wrong. Pure, flat-out wrong. Gravity is experimentally testable. Experimental tests of gravity are done constantly. The University of Washington has a whole group doing interesting experimental tests of gravity. We launched a spacecraft, Gravity Probe B, to experimentally test gravity. There are a host of theories, both metric and non-metric, with alternate possible models of gravity, and experimental tests constantly being done to try to determine whether one of these are correct. The statement that you can't even think of a way to test gravity is wrong. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you the Geoffrey A. Landis? Thanks. (Regardless, I do appreciate your recent work as a wikipedian). Ra2007 (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I'm the only Geoffrey A. Landis I know of. (There is a Geoffrey B. Landis, and also I believe a Geoffrey C. Landis, but I'm the "A" version.) Geoffrey.landis (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry about your rough treatment. I do hope you come back from time to time and fix articles that you see have factual errors. Ra2007 (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I know it was frustrating, but you should apologize to filll (talk · contribs) for this editing of his comments on an article talk page. I think this is a no-no on wikipedia. Ra2007 (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled here. The tag "citation needed" is only a tag that's put onto somebody else's post. Nobody ever tags their own post with citation needed. Putting a "citation needed" tag onto a post is equivalent to a statement that the assertion tagged needs citation.Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Logically, you are correct--there was no possibility for misunderstanding that the user tagged his own statement. But there are rules at wikipedia, and they are complex. Some contributors are adroit at baiting new users to violate esoteric rules, and also good at screaming bloody murder when the rules are violated. For example, provocatively, they will describe edits new users made with harsh langauge. New users will correctly take this as an insult against them, and insult back. However, it is okay to insult edits, but not editors. Anyway, you are correct logically, but you don't actually have to mean it when you apologize. It is just the cost of entry in the wikipedia system. You might want to look at Editing other's comments. Also take a look at WP:BITE Ra2007 (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, you may be called to the mat for this, because you deleted other comments. (You might not, either, since it was part of a good faith apology.) Just a warning. Ra2007 (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know; I'm hoping that Filll will accept this a an apology, and I can back out of the whole thing. This has been consuming way too much time, and I believe that there are more useful things that both of us could be doing with our time. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My guess is he will accept it. I agree, the drama is too much sometimes. Ra2007 (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Would you be interested in my comment here? The Eddington and General Relativity articles don't really cover the experiment. If I started up a separate page on it, would you be able to help out? Carcharoth (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, an article specifically about the expedition seems reasonable. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at the discussion that has taken place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Golomb? --Eastmain (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to see somebody edit the article and add some meat to it, to keep it out of the speedy-delete queue. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I re-added the FACT tag over at Foetry.com relating to the Jorie Graham Rule. My reasoning is on the discussion page, and I hope that you or someone else can find evidence for this outside of Foetry itself. I'll probably give it a couple of weeks and then delete the item as a whole if nobody's come up with anything new. ProfJeFF (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd added two citations; but at your request I added three more. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much - I left a response on the Foetry.com talk page so that everyone can see what I was thinking. ProfJeFF (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with your comment on the Jamie Bishop article. If anyone tries to rush this through another AfD, let me know and I'll try to help. Likewise, if you ever need any assistance on any articles here drop me a line. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 01:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Geoffrey.landis (talk) 03:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied on the energy stuff here. Another thing I wanted to ask someone who knows about this kind of thing is whether the following articles are OK: On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances and Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire - they were on a list to be checked for accuracy following an arbitration case, but I don't know if they ever did get checked. Finally, I mentioned above, back in January, that I was thinking of doing an article on the Eddington experiment. Would you have time to have a look at it? See here. I've been picking rather desultorily at it, and some external comment would be useful. The sources I am using are on the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually a little overcommitted right now; I might have a few minutes to look over an article, but don't really have time to make any serious editing. I did look over the two thermodynamics articles, and about all I can say is that it's a field of history on which I don't have much expertise, and can't make any useful comments on accuracy. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was very pleased to see this! I knew it was important to get that bit of the background right, and you seem to have got it spot on with that reference. The bit about the corpuscular theory of light falling into obscurity is a really good point as well. Might go and do a bit more work on the article again, now. Carcharoth (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There's an ongoing debate at Talk:Haiku regarding approaches to improving the article (particularly with a view to shortening it). As an editor who has had some input there in the past, your views would be welcomed. Thanks
--Yumegusa (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I made one trivial change, but in general I have no serious issues with the tenor of the rewrites. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And thank you. Efforts to improve are likely to be ongoing at haiku, and your input is always appreciated.
--Yumegusa (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to split Haiku

A proposal has been made to split the haiku article. As an editor who has made substantial input to the article, your views would be appreciated at Talk:Haiku. Thanks.
--Yumegusa (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I do understand your sentiment, expressed at Talk:Geostationary orbit, that some wikipedia discussions become tedious. Sadly that seems a fundamental quality of any collaborative effort where new contributors join mid-stream, as it were. (I think I also understood your point, expressed much earlier, that no matter what one "might think", in actual practice the two terms under discussion are often used interchangably.) While of course I would honor your wish to be rid of the whole discussion if you have truly grown weary of it, I would also appreciate your commentary at Talk:Geostationary_transfer_orbit#Breeze-M 5-burn mission design. I've started that thread in an attempt to interpret what is current "state of the art" use of the "GTO" term, and any contribution you can make to that discussion would be of help. Best regards, (sdsds - talk) 23:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, what a complicated way to get to GEO. I made some mods to the Geostationary transfer orbit page to incorporate some of that, and commented on it at Talk:Geostationary_transfer_orbit#Breeze-M 5-burn mission design; let me know what you think. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Deletionpedia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. - Icewedge (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say that this Speedy deletion note needs a discussion. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated Deletionpedia, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletionpedia. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

well, let's see if anybody else adds content. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I added content. Unfortunately in these days of new page patrollers there doesn't seem to be any patience for letting a new article, particularly a WP:SUBSTUB, get a chance to attract contributions. I didn't know a d*** thing about Deletionpedia or its raison d'être or the related proposals and it probably took less time to flesh it out then for two editors to subject it to three sequential deletion proposals. :-) 67.101.5.132 (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC).

This one was an accident, it seems that Realkyhick created an AFD for this page just a few seconds before I did so WP:TW (a tool I use) created a second one, I have closed it. - Icewedge (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware of WP:3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And wrt Greenhouse effect, please note you're now at 3R William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, thanks for the warning. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You've broken 3RR. Please self-revert before I report you William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, but in any case it's already been reverted, and any further reversions on my part would definitely break 3RR. I don't see any impending resolution of this dispute, and edit warring doesn't seem to be getting anywhere, so I've requested mediation. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We'll see what the reviewing admin thinks then; [[4]] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The reviewing admin administers a strongly worded final warning. Edit-warring to keep a word against strong, and, it seems, unanimous opposition by several editors, and indeed several experts on that very topic, is not useful. Moreover, Geoffrey, you misrepresent WP:OR. If you apply dictionary definitions in a scientific context, it's you who is performing OR, not the other side. If you want "re-" in, it's up to you to bring sources - and, in this situation, proper scientific ones, not general purpose dictionaries. Please do not revert in such situations in the future. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies about violation of the 3RR; I erred.

As for applying dictionary definitions in a scientific context, this was to show that the statement in the Fraser website cited that the word was "nonsense" is not consensus. (As it turns out, the argument given by Fraser in the cited website was not the line of reasoning used by Connolley et al. in deleting the term, so rebuting Fraser turned out to be, for the most part, irrelevant to the discussion of Conolley's argument. Unlike Fraser, none of the participants in the Wikipedia discussion apparently had issues about the definition of the word.) Geoffrey.landis (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Your userpage starts off in the 3rd person and ends in the first. But I didnt edit it, as this frequently offends William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm-- and, paradoxically, the part written in the first person is the part I didn't write.... I suppose there's no relevance to the single line written in first person ("A fan noticed that I had started submitting to Wikipedia, so he took the time to write up a very basic userpage for me.") which is only a historical artifact left over from the original page, so I deleted it. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 03:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, this is probably not the best place for this but I have to say that I have read a very long time ago (actually in a translation to Portuguese) your short story Ripples in the Dirac Sea. It was one of the best sci-fi stories that I have ever read! Thanks! Zen Mind (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The elision you made (2nd time I think) is unfortunate. There was, and now is not, an attempt to note that an SPS based on heat engine electricity generation is subject to the usual lawas of thermodynamics as they apply to the heat engines. That is, the efficiency is a function of the ratio between incoming temp and exiting temp fo the working fluid. While PV energy collection is not so restricted. In principle a 100% efficient PV cell is possible (save practical problesm with materials and fabrication problems) if only we could find a substance which would collect at that efficiency. But it happens at room temperature (or rather ambient temperature), and so does evades the usual thermodynamic heat engine limitations. In addition, you changed the current upper limit for PV efficiency from 41% to 35%. Boeing's most recent triple band PV cells are incredibly expensive, but are reported at 41% efficiency. I will attempt to take the trouble to review the other changes and rearrngements in your most recent edit soon, but can't just now. ww (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything in the universe is subject to the laws of thermodynamics. No exceptions. Photovoltaics do have the advantage that the incoming temperature is the effective temperature of the solar photons, which is 5800 K; but nevertheless, PV is subject to the laws of thermodynamics, and 100% efficiency is not possible.

Also, I think you need a reference to the purported 41% efficiency solar cell. (Also, you may be confusing Air Mass 1.5 (that is, terrestrial sunlight) efficiency with Air Mass Zero (that is, space sunlight) efficiency numbers. Boeing (nor their subsidiary, Spectrolab) most emphatically has not demonstrated 41 percent efficiency under space sunlight.) Geoffrey.landis (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You are perhaps taking this comment wrongly. Thermo clearly applies to everything, BUT absorption of photons is not subject to the usual Carnot/Clausius heat engine limitations,

Again, my apologies, but solar cells are subject to the laws of thermodynamics. Any statement to the contrary is incorrect.

I suspect a terminological difference here, not one of content. There is likely to be a term in physics which exactly covers the difference, but I can't recall it from my long ago physics classes. Quantum mechanical effects (eg, light amplification by stimulated emissions of radiations, masers, and generally absorption and emission of photons by electrons, ...) behave differently from the ordinary heat engines with regard to the waste heat generated. PV cells, and I suppose plant photosynthesis also, do so as well. This point deserves to be made, as there is a qualitative difference between PV and SD, and not only the lack of pistons or turbines and a working fluid. Please suggest wording which would make this point and be acceptable to you.

The maximum possible hot-end temperature of a heat engine running from sunlight is 5800K [since if it got any hotter, it would radiate energy to the sun instead of vice versa]. The maximum thermodynamic efficiency of a heat engine with a hot end of 5800K and a cold end (say) of 300 is (1-300/5800)= 94.8%. The maximum thermodynamic efficiency of a solar cell is exactly the same. In the real world, materials limitations mean that you can't operate at 5800K, so the "real" maximum efficiency is much lower. However, in solar cells, materials limitations also mean you can't reach the thermodynamic limit, and the "real" maximum efficiency is much lower as well.

Really. This is my area of expertise. Solar cells do not transcend the laws of thermodynamics. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

so all energy actually absorbed by a solar panel will be available, in theory. Of course, losses thereafter will be the normal sort (eg, resistive). That's the distinction that was being made and which you removed. I did not have Solar equivalent temperature in mind here, and there was no mention at that part of the article of differences in performance of any type of solar cells in space conditions as opposed to terrestrial ones. No one has respectable experimental data of that sort on recent solar cell designs that I know of. If nothing else solar wind particle accretion may be an issue, and is one it would be hard to simulate readily at the surface.

As for Boeing, their subsidiary (SpectroLab, I think I recall you're right on that) is claimed to have reached 41% (presumably under terrestrial conditions) absorption of incident energy. At truly stupendous prices.

citation needed. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

None of the statements in the article (in this original section or otherwise) are referable to hard data taken under the desired operating and environmental conditions as no one has done that. But the high efficiency is notable for the Average Reader for whom we are writing, as is the non-applicability of the efficiency limits which afflict heat engines (at leas in photoelectric cells aboard an SPS). ww (talk) 06:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Geoffrey.landis. You have new messages at Talk:Comparison of heavy lift launch systems.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GW… 07:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

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 (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Honeybee Robotics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Dr.K. logos 20:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have perhaps anticipated your wishes by taking the deleted material and placing it into a sandbox page at User:Geoffrey.landis/Sandbox for your inspection and use. You may agree with me that the paucity of the material doesn't indicate sufficient notability for the article to have remained in place (or, indeed, any information about the company whatever), but if your opinion about the notability of the topic is borne out by the facts, you should have no problem in adding some reliable sources that demonstrate the notability of the topic before returning the article to mainspace. Good luck with your efforts and if you have any questions or problems, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The current Honeybee Robotics page, I hope, should be a little less prone to deletion. I will continue to suggest, however, the fact that Speedy Delete was used on the Honeybee page at all points up a bad fatal flaw in the Wikipedia Speedy Delete process. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

File:PV 1980-2007.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Photovoltaic array world production 1980-2007.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Photovoltaic array world production 1980-2007.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I reported you for edit warring here.Cptnono (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Glenn Beck. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Abecedare (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Geoffrey.landis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Well, just to make sure that the block doesn't go completely uncontested, I would like to point out that I reverted to different versions of added text, in an (apparently futile) attempt to address the stated concern by making the added material more concise and better referenced. This attempt was a little difficult, in that the criticisms of the added text claimed violation of Wikipedia policies with no clear relevance. Of course, I'm sure that everybody claims that it's always the other guy at fault, but in this case I saw little evidence of any attempt to compromise on the text coming from anybody except me. The apparent consensus is currently to a paragraph that is so short as to be devoid of any real context.

Decline reason:

OK. You can feel good about yourself for having stood up to The Man, but I'm not unblocking nor, I think, would any other admin. Yes, many people in this position make that "It's an orangy sky ... always it's some other guy" argument. But, as that song goes on to say, "it's just a broken lullaby". As for the remnant graf (which, please note, does not make it the consensus version) being superficial, well, that's the tragedy of edit warring, isn't it? — Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thank you for uploading File:Geoffrey Landis.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia copyright policies turn out to be too complicated for me to understand, I'm afraid. The correct form is whatever one says "posted to Wikipedia with permission." Geoffrey.landis (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Geoffrey.landis! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 873 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Steven Popkes - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

During the FAC for Speed of light, a user has questioned the usefulness of the paragraph you added in this edit (which has since been moved to a section to its own). You might be interested to comment in the discussion I've opened about it. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 19:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Russell Davis (writer), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/11760.Russell_Davis. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You and I once had a difference of opinion about the thermodynamics of photovoltaic cells in the context of a solar power satellite. It was settled, insofar as it can be said to have been, on the basis of your clim of special expertise and knowledge.

Recently, a group at Caltech has announced experimental verification of a new design involving silicon nanorods in a matrix. They claim experimental results of 85% efficiency for sunlight, and 95% for selected wavelenths. They further claim effectively perfect quantum efficiency.

Does this affect your dismissal of the idea that the process of photon absorption evades entropy? This experimental demonstration would seem to run counter to that. ww (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to say I support your viewpoint on Jake Bernstein. Maybe it warrants a notability tag? RadioBroadcast (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jake Bernstein, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Bernstein. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know that Geoffrey A. Landis made WP:Good article status. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks for all your work! Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stay civil. I can't fix all articles at once. However, an argument "go find better refs for my added statement 'cause I can't" never justified re-adding spamlinks. Please stop. Materialscientist (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Your statement-- not mine-- was "we usually seek better refs or avoid such information." Excellent. Indeed, better references would be good, please go find them and put them in the article. This would improve the article. In the interim, until you do, stop deleting the material I add."' Geoffrey.landis (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I was deleting refs, not material. Seriously, it is not always easy to find non-promotional refs for some topics, including this, but it is possible. Your help is appreciated. Materialscientist (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The section, before I started editing it, was not only wrong, it read like it had been written directly from advertising copy for the C. Crane company. I added a very brief mention of two competitors to the C. Crane product being pimped, and included two citations as references for what I'd written. You deleted the citations, apparently in the belief that no citation whatsoever is better than a citation that links to a commercial website. I disagree. It's fine if you want to go find better citations, but, removing citations does not improve the article, even if you don't like them.Geoffrey.landis (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(i) "No buying guides" is a basic WP policy. It is more practical to live with it than oppose it. (ii) Many WP pages are in such premature state that some parts are easier to fix by deletion, not mending. Materialscientist (talk) 04:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No, "add a citation for all facts quoted" is basic WP policy. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Since there is no consensus either way, I have removed the disputed information until one can be achieved. This was the process which resolved the Energia dispute, and I am sure it will work again here as long as nobody acts disruptively. I would like to recommend that you take some time to become acquainted with policies and guidelines such as WP:BRD and WP:EW, as some of your attempts to restore your preferred version of content may unintentionally be interpreted as disruptive. If you make an edit and it is reverted, you should not restore it without starting a discussion, and waiting to see if there are any objections. I'm sure you are acting in good faith, but I think some of your actions may be coming across the wrong way. --GW… 19:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• I am attempting to write an article that is clear, simple, and understandable by non-experts, by clearly defining and and explaining the terms used, and then using the terms in accordance to the way they have been defined. I'm not sure what you are attempting. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your recent Talk Page comment on Comparison of super heavy lift launch systems to User:GW Simulations: Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. N2e (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I consider deleting information which is cited, useful, and correct to be indistinguishable from vandalism. Since saying that is apparently a "personal attack," my bad. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Geoffrey, the term "vandalism" -- on Wikipedia, at least -- implies that an edit was made out of malice, and that there's no possible way for it to have been made with good intent. Edits made as a result of disputes on content don't count as vandalism, because each disputant sincerely believes he's improving the article. The disputants might be wrong, but they're not vandals -- and they may indeed feel unjustly attacked by being referred to as such. (I'm still a fan of your fiction, by the way.) DS (talk) 13:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

GW deleted from the article all reference to failures of launch vehicles, thereby deleting infomation that was correct, useful, and cited. (Nor did he dispute that the information he deleted was correct, useful, and cited-- his argument was that he didn't like the particular form in which it was tabulated). Vandalism would be the act of deleting information that is correct, useful, and cited. The only distinction would be intent, and I have no way to determine intent. Therefore, his edits are INDISTINGUSHABLE from vandalism. The adjective "indistinguishable" is a relevant part of the sentence.

In my opinion, deleting content' goes beyond merely "edits made as a result of disputes. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Careful Geoffrey. That deletion, which I observed when made, and had observed much of the Talk page discussion that preceded it, was definitely made in good faith by the user who made the change. Moreover, there was support on the Talk page, by other users than the editor who deleted the claims, that the claims removed were either unsourced or constituted synthesis. That is not vandalism! My comment to you stands: "Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you."

The user might have been wrong, or perhaps should have waited longer, or tried harder for Talk page consensus, but in no way were the edits vandalism, or inconsistent with WP policy on attempting to discuss on the Talk page while still being WP:BOLD in improving the encylopedia. Vandalism allegations are personal, and they are by nature about a specific editor. Those are very strong words in in the Wiki-community and you would do well to consider more carefully their use.N2e (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree here.

GW had, after much discussion in the (very long and tedious) commentary section, agreed that there actually is a distinction between a rocket that blows up on launch, destroying the spacecraft, and one that puts a working spacecraft into orbit; and that this information could be useful, particularly to people outside the field who are reading the article as an introduction in order to get top-level information. The information in question-- whether a rocket blew up, or placed a working spacecraft in orbit-- is cited. The disagreement he is arguing is that adding a column in which this information is tabulated might conceivably mean that people reading a different article could be confused.

So, my comment to you is to find a way to incorporate this information into the article, in a way which satisfies GW, and which is still clear, well defined, and readable (and understandable) by non-experts. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sentence spacing. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

The above seems very formal. Please just discuss on the talk page before making contentious contributions to an FA. I think you'll find the editors there amenable to reasonable changes if discussed. --Airborne84 (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The article does not read like a feature article. It reads like an advocacy piece. It desparately needs some rewriting to restore NPOV. However, I don't really have time to do this, sorry. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you don't like the coverage. However, please keep in mind that a group of experienced Wikipedia editors promoted it to Featured Article (after a lengthy process). Thus, it had to meet the Featured Article criteria. Criterion 1.d. requires NPOV, so I must disagree that the article violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I won't claim that the article cannot be improved though. Thanks for your interest in the article. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Stating "this article was once a feature article, therefore, it can't possibly have any violations of NPOV" is not actually a valid argument. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

A fair point. However, the article has changed very little since it was accepted as an FA. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I advise you to stop edit-warring in the article immediately. You are editing against consensus and degrading the article with poorly written, poorly referenced material. Please follow the BRD cycle and gain consensus before you make any more substantive changes. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It is contrafactual to state that I am edit warring against consensus, since it is quite clear that no consensus exists.

I would like to request you to please follow the BRD cycle yourself, and gain consensus before reverting text. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

BRD applies to the person trying to initiate changes. I don't believe for a second that you're not aware of what lines you're crossing—but I'm trying to advise you on what behavior is likely to give you the best results here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Take or leave it, but don't be surprised if the article ends up locked completely or you end up blocked for edit warring. Neither outcome is desirable, especially one that prevents you from participating in discussion. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to keep the context in view, the "edit war" you had referred to consisted primarily of a single editor reverting text that I had added. Once other editors joined in, I moved the discussion to the talk page. Strangely, when that editor left the discussion, the "edit war" vanished. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed your debate with Cptono. He has a history of bullying, dominating article pages, and using the Wiki Policies as a weapon. This guy is bad news. My advice is steer clear of him, because he will probably try to get you banned if you push back too hard. For some reason, his habit of swearing and insulting other uses hasn't really resulted in any punishment for him. 76.119.137.236 (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The part where he wrote that I was an "asshole"(strikethrough his) and "lacked balls" because I did not ignore NPOV did somewhat give me that impression. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That is pretty typical behavior of Cptono. Unfortunately he has a lot of friends and like minded editors on wikipedia. So any ANIs or complaints against him, even when well founded, have been useless. Unfortunately this also means his edits tend to get undo weight because his position is supported by others on the discussion pages. He has almost single handedly driven off some very good editors from the Glenn Beck page. And he (along with his retinue of friends) has managed to get a number of people who post things he doesn't like banned. Basically those who post in a way he or his friends (AerobicFox, BaseballBugs, etc) don't like, are investigated by the group for any possible breach of wiki policy so they can report that person. If you mess with them, you'll find they go over all over your posts to date, all of your deletions, etc until they find a problem. People have complained but again, these guys never get punished. 76.119.137.236 (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your part in contributing to yet another sockpuppet investigation. See you at WP:ANI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Making myself present to respond to the mentioning of me up there. I haven't been at the article for weeks(since the whole BlennGeck SPI), and I don't really have any reasons to return. As for the "investigation" I just clicked on the IP address you accidentally posted with and scrolled down to your second edit on the Glenn Beck talk page which was you editing your previous accounts post. Hardly an investigation on my part, mostly a careless mistake on your part. I'd recommend chilling out, and finding other places to edit as well.AerobicFox (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this basically proves my accusation regarding you two and Cptono. Clearly one of you, or someone you communicate with, starting checking my posting history as soon as I made a negative comment on the Glenn Beck page (or do you check G. Landis' talk page regularly for no apparent reason?).

You see what I mean Geofrey? Like I said, bad news. It isn't worth the trouble tangling with these folk. They will find a way to get you banned or warned. 76.119.137.236 (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The night has a thousand eyes. :) Meanwhile, I note your non-denial denial. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I notice you haven't denied my accusation. Baseball, do you realize the maturity level you appear to be operating at here? What you and the others are engaged in is not adult behavior. 76.119.137.236 (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

What accusation are you referring to? I see a lot of complaining that you aren't being allowed to turn the Beck article into a tabloid story. What else ya got? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The accusation regarding you, aerobic fox and Cptono (see above). Never wanted or suggested GB page be a tabloid. Just suggested there was a bias in favor of positive entries. Including negative material does not equal tabloid. It equals objective. 76.119.137.236 (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to read WP:BLP and try to understand why bio articles tend to lean toward the "positive". We get the same complaints from right-wingers, about left-wingers' pages being too "positive". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand WP:BLP and have read it thoroughly. The problem is the article is clearly stacked so that legitimate negative material isn't being included. I am far from the only editor to suggest this. I think most BLP are problematic in this way. But the deeper issue is, you guys are systematically trying to ban people for suggesting (suggesting!) that more negative coverage be included. 76.119.137.236 (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Deliciousgrapefruit was finally put on ice because he wouldn't stop editorializing and making libelous comments about the subject. As regards the New York Times thing, that appears to be somebody trying to wish something true. It's not really about Beck, it's about the Times. It doesn't belong in the article at present. If it becomes fact, that would be a different story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? What libelous claims was he making. And I never suggested the rumors of Beck's departure should be included in the article. 76.119.137.236 (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That he's a "right-wing demagogue" or some such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Didn't catch that statement. However, that is more a matter of opinion than fact. You can't prove or disprove he is a right wing demagogue. It isn't a libelous claim at all. Just like it isn't libelous to call someone a left wing nut job. 76.119.137.236 (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It's libelous if you put it into an article, especially without citation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

First, that wouldn't be libelous even if it was placed in the article (see my comment above---commentators and journalists call public figures right wing demagogues and left wing nut jobs all the time; it simply isn't libel). Second, it never made it into the actual article as far as I can tell. It just looks like a poster voicing his opinion on the talk page. 76.119.137.236 (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The last edit Grapefruit made to the Beck article, before being juiced, was this,[5] a blatant editorial statement which I'm sure you'll agree had no business being in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Geoffrey.landis. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Both your article and that of your wife, which you created. Epeefleche (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. As I noted, the WP:COI has considerably changed since the version that existed when I first started editing several years back (the main point of which was: avoid adding content-free material, and eschew NPOV). I will check the recent version and check what has changed. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever edited under any other user name or IP name on Wikipedia? I've asked you the question three times already. Your responses have so far failed to answer that question.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I answered it the first time you asked it. I edit under my own name. Unlike you.

I will not respond to any further comments from you. Goodbye. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 05:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Even a slow-witted fellow like me could not help but notice that again -- in this, my fourth effort to get a straight honest answer out of you, you failed to respond. I did not ask whether you edit under your name. I asked -- in a very short and direct sentence, that I will now supply emphasis for as you keep on avoiding answering it -- "Have you ever edited under any other user name or IP name on Wikipedia?"

You see, I'm troubled by the possibility now that you have done so, and tag-teamed as such in violation of our sockpuppetry rules. Your continued evasiveness is doing little to comfort me.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

People like you, Epeefleche, are why editors are fleeing Wikipedia in droves and / or editing under random IPs. And, of course, editing *not logged in* is *not* against any "rules". 76.22.32.86 (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

So, are you this same editor, logged off? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not. I don't have any connection at all to the owner of this page (if Geoffrey.landis is from Lakewood Washington, he doesn't run in my circles) . But thanks for proving my point. From what I can tell, Landis is some sort of NASA engineer in Ohio. I, on the other hand, am a flunkie at an DoD installation in Washington State. I encourage you to think we are in "cahoots" because it supports my ideas about your overall level of paranoia (or perhaps conceit). And, while I still have an account in good standing, I haven't used it in a few years because I choose not to be ABUSED by "editors" like you. 76.22.32.86 (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Lakewood, Washington, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"obviously driven by two or three editors with some undisclosed personal issue "

This doesn't make it sound like other editors are the ones who are paranoid. No one here has ever heard of Geoffrey.landis.AerobicFox (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point, AF. It's true. I had never heard of Landis or his wife, as of a couple of week's ago. And yet -- some IP located in the area where Landis works takes issue w/my taking issue w/her notability, and tag-teams w/Landis on his wife's talkpage. And then, as reflected above, Landis refuses to say whether he has edited under any IP or any user name other than the Landis name. Actually, even worse than refusing -- he tries playing the "I have a significantly-under-100-IQ, and misunderstand your question ... 4 times" card.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of any of the "notable" Anime that folks like you seem to fawn over. That must mean they are not notable, yes? By the way, have YOU or any of your friend / groupies ever received a Nebula Award or Hugo Award? No? Landis has... People like you represent everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. 76.22.32.86 (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea who these "anime folk" are that you are referring to, but do you think that Pokemon, Sailor Moon, Dragon ball Z, are not as notable as Geoffrey Landis? As for winning the Nebula or Hugo award, I don't write science fiction or attend sci-fy conventions, so no I haven't won something like that.AerobicFox (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.