User talk:Martin Hogbin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Missing my point

The correct place to discuss that is with the editor who removed the comment, not on the article's talk page. Adding an off-topic section to discuss the removal of off-topic comments just makes matters worse. Use the editor's user talk page. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your 'advice'. The problem that I have is that I am unlikely to get any sensible response from the tag-team member who removed my comment. In order to get anything done, I need to attract the attention of other editors. There clearly is a band of editors exerting total control over this page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Again?

Hello, Martin Hogbin. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Martin Hogbin. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And another. HJMitchell You rang? 19:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Global warming

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Global warming, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. --TS 13:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Martin,

Ref [1] please note that asking for an explanation of a revert is completely acceptable and should be done on talk. However undoing a revert whilst asking for an explanation, on an article on probation, in my view is edit warring. There is a fine line in an edit war as each side inches a little further forward and there is a degree of arbitrariness on when the line is crossed which is why I am dropping you a note rather than taking action. I am sure that you wish to contribute constructively to this article: please do not edit war. --BozMo talk 07:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I am not sure that a single revert could be classed as edit warring. Regarding article probation, this requires all editors to act to the highest standards. Reverting a good faith addition (even if inaccurate) with no edit summary and with the change being marked as minor is also not acceptable, especially on an article on probation, and I was bringing this to the attention of all editors as this type of activity seems to be endemic on the GW article. I have mentioned this before on the talk page, only to have my comments deleted. To contact each editor in turn to make the point is not practical.

I accept that my action was a little over zealous but, had the reversion had a short edit summary saying something along the lines of, 'Text not supported by cited source', then I, or any other interested editor, could have checked my facts before reverting. The editor concerned has apologised and that is the end of the matter as far as I am concerned. Let us hope that everyone has learned a lesson. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this [2] can be regarded as a good-faith addition. Sourcing something clearly controversial to the Daily Mail is not acceptable, even if the material is good, which in this case it wasn't. In 2010, some of the world's most eminent climate scientists said is nonsense. Martin: if you really know the GW topic so badly that you can't recognise this text as obviously unacceptable, then you should make a habit of discussing your proposed edits on talk *first* rather than reverting them back in William M. Connolley (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The text may have been unacceptable and should have been reverted, but not without without comment. A terse edit summary would have done the job. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

@Martin. That's fine, I am sure you realised I also complained to CC about the lack of edit summary at the same time but I am not sure that I accept the original edit which you reverted back in was good faith; aside it itself being done under "minor" with content which Dalej78 must have realise would be unacceptable, I have been through the last couple of years of Dalej78's edits and it is unclear to me that there have been any positive contributions at all since 2007, just deliberate attempts to undermine the atmosphere. I think the Dalej78 account as it stands would qualify for indef blocking as vandal only. Therefore although I do not doubt your good faith, someone reverting Dalej78 as a minor edit without comment was also understandable. --BozMo talk 10:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I do understand the frustration felt by the regular editors of a FA when poor quality material should be added. I also agree that, in many cases, immediate reversion is appropriate, but in the case of a highly contentions topic like this, that is also under probation, there is an onus on both sides to act properly. As I said above, a terse edit summary would have allowed interested editors to check the facts. In the current climate (no pun intended) this should be the expectation for all edits except genuine minor ones (typos etc).

I cannot accept that Dalej78 is a vandal just because his edits do not meet the standards required for an FA. He is clearly trying to balance the article by adding to the 'Debate and scepticism' section. He may be making a bad job of this, but that is not vandalism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to List of scientists

Whilst I don't disagree or agree with your edit this page has had a lot of wrangling over the text and most changes are discussed on the talkpage, so don't be surprised if it is undone. I do disagree with your edit summary. The page is not a list of 'climate scientists' who oppose the mainstream view, it is a list of 'scientists'. If we had a list of climate scientists first of all it would be difficult to define and secondly we might actually find it difficult to find enough who fit the criteria for a list. Therefore majority does not really properly address this, "vast overwhelming majority" might but then those are words we tend not to use on wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but the article made no sense as it was. I am sure that there are some climat scientists who disagree, so to start with 'climate scientists agree' is nonsense. The first section, and indeed most of the text seems to be promoting what it is that the list of scientists disagrees with. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Mediation is getting underway. Do you have Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem on your watch list? -- Rick Block (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will add it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is there such friction at GW?

Hi Martin. I worry that part of the problem at Global Warming is that there are many ways to change the article but only one way for it to stay the same. I wonder if it would be worth listing the different views on what direction the article should be taking. eg

(The "Improvement "Chart" removed from here and placed at my TalkPage here). MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

In my experience attempts to organise the improvement of a page rarely succeed. Some editors will not participate in your scheme, others will start up their own schemes.

In my opinion the most important problem on the GW page is that of oppressive editing and page ownership, especially the rapid deletion and archiving of discussion. Once these issues are resolved it might be easier to move forward. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a massive problem of page ownership and oppressive editing and it's obvious to a lot of people. TalkPage deletions of other people's comments and rapid archiving are a big part of it. I wondered if a table might highlight the fact there were about 6 editors rejecting all suggestions for improvement, and up to 20 who have changes they'd like to make. The stone-walling we see damages the cooperation that many other editors long to embrace. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you would find that any attempt to poll editors in the way that you suggest will be rapidly sabotaged. By all means give it a try. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you feel about hosting it on your page? I could lift the whole thing and put it on mine, were mine not sullied by very respected but angry-looking experts making accusations that "of course the article is fit for purpose, how dare you suggest otherwise".

In the not too-distant future, some editors might face demands "if your name is not linked to a view on Martin's page it must be because you're fringe and progress here will continue without you". Two can play at the game "you're not main-stream, therefore we can ignore you". MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think your page would be better. It is your idea. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you feel that any of the options fully reflect your current position and would you be willing to enter your name, and a synopsis of your position, in the appropriate place? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to add my name. I think one section should read 'Censorship currently makes cooperative editing and improvement possible'. This is the key issue to me. Also maybe 'the section on debate and skepticism should reflect the views of sceptics' Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There we are, make any other suggestions and I'll take it away. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It is all yours. Now we need to get the views of other editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I imagine this being a slow-burning project and I'm contacting critics of the article first. If I can get a reasonable turn-out (perhaps 20 or so) then I can list and/or request that supporters of the current article show their hand. All suggestions gratefully recieved. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should formulate this as a RFC. Contacting critics of the article first seems like a poor choice of strategy. Surely the opinions of the uninvolved would be more useful. --TS 16:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to help with this important project, you'd be very welcome. You could start by adding your name to the "basically going OK" category, with any caveats you have. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You have been requested by Awickert (talk) to provide examples here of "GW article reads like an advertisement". MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI

There is an issue being discussed at WP:ANI#Deleting and readding of talk page comments in which you may be involved.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"I didn't hear that"

As I remarked to MalcolmMcdonald on a separate subject:

You're becoming a stuck record, ignoring the clearly stated comments of other editors and coming back again and again to the same rejected suggestions, like an old fashioned gramophone whose needle has stuck in part of the record, replaying the same section of music repeatedly.

You've asked the same question repeatedly on talk:global warming: [3] [4] [5]. The answer to this question, you've been told, is complex, yet you repeat the question demanding an answer. This seems unrelated to improving the article (and thus the potential problem here is more egregrious than in MalcolmMcDonald's case).

There are appropriate forums and blogs in which you could pose this question and argue over the reponses. Wikipedia is not one of them.

Please clarify how you see this line of questioning improving the article, and stop simply parroting the same question. --TS 16:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind remarks. I have covered the issues that you have raised on the article talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have repeatedly made real and detailed suggestions to improve the Global Warming article, my own particular gripe (backed by numerous examples) being that the article fails to be informative. I've yet to come across examples where the article could be descibed as informative. For this I suffer personal attack.

Other people have other serious gripes about the article, eg "Include politics of GW", "the views of sceptics are not represented properly", "Censorship makes cooperative editing and improvement extremely difficult" and "Article reads like an advertisement". I don't understand why it's such a problem to write this article to be useful to readers. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Conformance to the Copenhagen Accord must have had some expected gain in GW terms. It would be useful and informative if the article were to state a value for this. What is the problem with doing so. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of this article or suite of articles is (presumably) to make information easily accessible. Instead of which, it sometimes appears that the article is being made as un-helpful as possible. Sorry to bang on about things, but "Amazon" and "desertification" have been taken out - how can that be helpful? No mention of the Antarctic - an astonishing omission! If people can't answer questions on TalkPages, then it becomes doubtful they can write articles that answer questions either. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm you are confusing "not anwering" with "not knowing". Wikipedia policy does not allow for talk-pages to become a question&answer forum. We are "refusing to answer" questions that is not going to improve the article. You have to turn to blogs or other forums to get answers to your questions. We are also not here to seek the WP:TRUTH, but instead to describe the subject, as seen from science.

Some of your questions btw. are answered on Wikipedia, but they are answered on sub-articles, since every topic cannot be discussed at the top-level article.

Glaciers are described in Retreat of glaciers since 1850. IPCC ARII criticism is covered in Criticism of the IPCC AR4. Antarctica in Climate of Antarctica (amongst others), Coral bleaching in Coral bleaching, Arctic shrinkage in Arctic shrinkage, .....

There are so many different sub-topics that are related to global warming, that the top-level article only summarizes some articles, which again may have summaries of several other articles. At each step details are lost, that is not from ignorance, but from necessity. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I see people not being helpful in direct interaction and it immediately explains what I and so many others have noticed, the product of this labour is almost completely unhelpful. I've proved that so often, from so many angles, that I'm getting sick of repeating myself.

Then I make suggestions to improve the article and I'm told off for "advocating". I cannot deny it. I advocate that the article should inform its readers/provide answers to their questions. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no rule against collecting opinion from already involved editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Good, I didn't think there should be. But I need to do a list of all the people to ask. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is, from what i can detect, that your defintion of how the article would be "usefull" isn't encyclopedic. An encyclopedia "attacks" a topic/subject from a standpoint significantly more like a text-book, than a Q&A/Debunking angle. We are here to describe what science says about the subject, and from the balance/view that scientists consider important. What you seem to be looking for is something that can answer your questions about the current news-cycle on global warming, and for that you need to go to other sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is entitled 'Global warming' not 'The science of global warming'. It should therefore cover the whole subject, including, science, causes, effects, mitigation, adaptation, and politics. The mitigation action of states, for example, is not controlled by science but by a mixture of science and politics. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I always thought an encyclopedia was written to answer questions, to solve arguments, to inform. I never realised that articles were intended to teach along the line of text-books. In fact, I wonder where that comes from. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Martin Hogbin - making some other changes, I've taken out the part where you said the chart is for the GW article only. Though you may have a clearer idea on this than me and be right. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It is your chart, so I guess that I should have left you to answer the question. Might I suggest that you create a special page in your user space for the table. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For [6]. I was probably silly not to start a new section. BTW I think it was Boris not TS who complained (but I think it is fine, and if you do kind of break any rules along the lines of "now we know what we want lets russle up a lynch party" I will try to discuss it with you first). --BozMo talk 13:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That's right. My comments were that it might be better as a RFC and instead of involved parties (for and against the global warming article in its present form) it might be more helpful to seek opinions from those uninvolved. --TS 14:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Improvement Chart is a work in progress to try and discover what changes have widespread support amongst people who've tried to make other improvements. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried analyzing how the successful improvements in the article actually take place? By examining these and comparing with those that have been proposed but failed, you might get a good handle on how to make successful proposals. --TS 14:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I know how "improvments" are done. Just when a discussion on the value of key-words is attempted (maybe they're the single most important and valuable aid to readers navigating for specific information/references?) and shortly after we were told we're stupid for not doing this already, vested editors come along and further reduce the small number of key-words in the article. That happened during a process where there were editors trying to stop the censorship.

WP:PRESERVE states "Try to preserve useful content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing tagged if necessary, or cleaned up on the spot". Care to guess how that works in practice? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

TS, I do not need to make proposals. This is Wikipedia - the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Please tell me why you would not want key data on AGW mitigation to be in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I possibly plea for the article to be shorter not longer? BTW there are fixes on the key words which work for search engines using section redirects (create an article with the name you think the search should win and e.g. Freaking Hawking put in something like #REDIRECT [[Stephen Hawking#Appearance on the Simpsons]] of course we need to decide whom we wish to send where, and a lot of admins get tetchy about articles created to redirect but you don't have to mention the key word to get the query whereever you want, and if you do it with a bit of discussion first it should survive trial by fire. --BozMo talk 21:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure this on the right page, I have no idea what you are talking about. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry mainly it was at Malcolm ref the comment above on keywords. Agree I will tell him somewhere else sometime. --BozMo talk 22:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be very interested to hear from you on this subject. But my proposal does not concern raising the article in Google ratings, but including key-words in each article (eg "Amazon" and "Antarctic", puzzlingly missing from the main Global Warming article) with links leading to sub-articles containing the detail. It's not difficult to get to the articles, it's the difficulty of navigating them that is so frustrating. As we were told, Good grief, how much spoon-feeding do you need?, we're meant to navigate by "search" on words within articles. Unfortunately, this won't work unless we facilitate it by providing the "key-words" people will tend to use. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note

From WP:BAN: A banned user who evades a ban, may have all of their edits reverted without question. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Sorry that no one wanted to discuss what you had to say on talk:Global warming. But thank you so much for showing the good faith and trying to start a new section on content. So it goes :( Awickert (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Standing in the way of a productive mediation

You seem to be spending more time criticizing me or your opposing parties than contributing to a productive mediation. Furthermore I urge you to be open-minded as to the real-time option which has "unstuck" many intractable mediations in the past; your statement that you "will not accept mediation through those media" is obstructionist and unhelpful. Andrevan@ 21:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not criticized you or those you call my opposing parties. You asked (referring to IRC) , 'Does everyone feel comfortable with that sort of approach?'. I have replied that I am not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Modification of Brews' sanctions

Thanks for your generous support in modification of my sanctions. Unfortunately, and for no stated reasons, no change is likely. I am sorry that no assessment of the suggestions and evidence was made. Brews ohare (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It seemed only fair to me that you should be able to express your own opinion in your own user space. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Your RFC suggestion

Your RFC suggestion is a good one, to say to Pedant17, "Come clean and admit you are using E-prime, explain why you thing it is appropriate to this page, and try to get a consensus to use it. If you do not get a consensus to use E-prime throughout, you can expect your edits to be rapidly reverted". I think that as you are the one that suggested this idea, perhaps you could leave that comment/suggestion at his talk page? Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Pedant17's motivation does not seem so clear cut to me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hrm, it was not I that came to the assessment that Pedant17 was motivated by E-Prime, but multiple different editors previously-uninvolved with this particular article, and I agree with them. Cirt (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Paywall source?

Regarding this request: I've sent you an email. I'll see if I can locate an online transcript of the Feynman lecture. Gabbe (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Talk:Nahum Shahaf

Thanks for your sugestion, I'm sorry an editor dismissed it so flippantly. I would hope you could participate in the discussion further the article could benefit from the neutral perspective of uninvolved editors. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to help if I can. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Faster than light

Sorry, I don't know if you'll see this. But I've been blocked from articles, discussion pages, and even, it seems, most talk pages. And as I pointed out that the blocking was unjustified, I don't expect that will change any time soon. So I don't know if you'll even see this. 216.239.82.80 (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see your message OK. How long have you been blocked for? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A higher up person in Wikipedia persisted the blocking. Now I'll probably be in trouble for being on another IP. 216.239.88.76 (talk) 07:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC) also known as 216.239.82.80

My suggestion would be that you register then explain that you are currently blocked for edit warring and ask to be unblocked. Registering gives you a fixed identity on WP. Once you are unblocked you need to take care to remain within the rules of WP by not holding discussions on the article page and not edit warring. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Doctor Who. 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. magnius (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I note that you do not appear to be a recent contributor to the article or an administrator so I am not sure on what basis you are contacting me.

Your comments on the matter in question would be of interest as there seems to be a number of non-British editors having a bizarre argument with some native British English speaking editors as to the normal word used in British English to refer to a set of episodes. I note that you use the term 'series' on your user page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussions are not limited to participants who speak a particular variant of the language. The discussion is a bit bizarre but you started said discussion, which is about the use of "season" or "series" relating to the classic episodes of Doctor Who and not what is the normal word for all British television programmes. Please take care to not misrepresent your fellow editors when restating their comments. Many scores of people have Doctor Who on their watchlist. The above warning likely comes from seeing the article in their watchlist. That is how i came across the discussion. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 21:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Tesla vs. Marconi deletion

I dispute your assertion (again) that the Tesla vs. Marconi section within Invention of radio is irrelevant to the article. Please do not remove it again without obtaining consensus on the article's Talk page. HarryZilber (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to discuss the issue on the article talk page then. I have been trying to do this for some time, with no response from anyone. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

Hi martin. Given the disagreements we had concerning evolution as fact or theory, I thought you might wish to weigh in at this discussion at the NPOV page. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 09:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me. I will take a look. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

IPA

Thanks for chiming in. I agree with everything you say. For months I tried to argue the same things you are saying, but I got bullied off the discussion with abuse, personal attacks, and downright insulting behaviour, but I refused to be drawn into incivility by the two defendants of everything that's wrong with their private version of the use of the IPA and its implementation in the Wikipedia.--Kudpung (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I am new to this subject, I was drawn in by the Worcester RfC but soon realised that the issue was much broader than Worcester.

As I see it, a relatively small bunch of editors have attempted to deal with the issue of multiple English pronunciations and have come up with a half-baked scheme that abuses the IPA and is ill-suited to the needs of WP. Worse still they are attempting to enforce their scheme throughout the encyclopedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Your perception is 100% accurate. It is sad that (bunch = 2) they are totally intransigent and remain so by blinding normal readers with pompous linguistic jargon (God knows, I' a linguist...), smoke screens, strawman arguments, deliberate off-tracking, and even exceptionally insulting behaviour. Ironically also, neither of them appear to be even qualified linguists, or to have a first hand knowledge of British English! I have prepared a proper RfC with a neutral proposition, with the help of some friends, to discuss this IPA issue. If you wish to see the draft and make any suggestions, you would have to let me know how I can contact you off line, because while it was in my sandbox it just caused more abuse and ill sentiment.--Kudpung (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone is free to email me at [email protected] Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Hi Martin,

I am a PhD student at the Open University of Catalonia. I am currently preparing a research project about the governance processes in online collaborative communities, and I would like to kindly ask for your collaboration based on your experience in Wikipedia. Interested in participating? Please drop me a note in my talk page. This would take around 20 of your time.

Thanks! Aresj (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Looking forward to getting your answers. Aresj (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Conditional solution references in lead and/or explanation

Do you object to including sentences like, "The Monty Hall problem can also be solved by a conditional probability problem, see #below." being placed in the lead or the initial explanation sections? Andrevan@ 17:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought we had all agreed that the lead is fine as it is. What is the sentence supposed to mean? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead wasn't the key point I was asking about, so feel free to disregard it. Andrevan@ 22:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a typo? I do not understand what it means. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I asked if you objected specifically to including references to an explanation of the conditional probability analysis of the Monty Hall problem and related sub- or parallel problems in the sections which are actually primarily dealing with the simple approach. Andrevan@ 00:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC) 00:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I object strongly to anything that might make the reader believe that the simple solution might give the wrong answer or answer the wrong question or that even sows the seeds of doubt in their minds about these things. "The Monty Hall problem can also be solved as a conditional probability problem" [presumed typo corrected] could suggest that there are two answers to the problem, one obtained by the simple solution and the other by means of conditional probability. Thus the reader may feel that to get the 'real' answer they have to study the conditional solution.

I also see no purpose in a statement that tells the reader that there are two ways of solving the problem when this will be self-evident from the fact that, immediately after, we show two ways of solving the problem. Any talk of 'other ways' or conditional probability etc should come at the start of the conditional solution section. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Clafication

Hi Martin, I just wanted to let you know that my edit summary ("Removed bad advice" ) for this removal of the two sections at Talk:Theory of relativity was not referring to the advice you gave at the bottom, but to this anonymous remark. The idea was to avoid talk page degeneration into another sci.physics.relativity madness ;-) - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I thing the OP was a genuine young enquirer and probably did look at the pages that I referred him to, but I understand your point. The talk pages are not really the place for teaching and learning about the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. By the way, your further assistance might be needed here or on the relevant page and talk page. Thanks - DVdm (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help. I have already commented as you have probably seen but I will try talking to the guy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Notification

As you have commented in an ANI thread or RfC relating to User:Pedant17, this is to notify you that the same user's conduct is being discussed here, along with sanction proposals. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly time to go to the Conflict of Interest noticeboard

I have left some advice on Blackash's userpage and told her that I am considering reporting her to the Coi noticeboard. She was reported once before but the discussion seems to have simply fizzled out. I plan on waiting about 48 hours to see if it sinks in before acting on this. I imagine you agree? If not please let me know what you think the best option is. Thanks, Colincbn (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, I propose to move the page to a neutral title. If, after I have done that, if Blackash's reverts I think that would show a clear conflict of interest which should be reported to the COI noticeboard. If the new title holds then we can start discussing a new title more sensibly. I still would not rule out reporting a COI but I think it would be best to move the page first. What do you think? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like either COI noticeboard or user RfC are the only options left now. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Arborsculpture

If there is any “wiki-legal” way to re-open the proposal to change the title of the article about arborsculpture to “Arborsculpture” that is exactly what we should so. THIS is the verifiable, written evidence I would have introduced had the debate not closed so quickly. --Griseum (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, I am planning to move the page to a neutral title. We can then start the discussion about where it should finally be. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like either COI noticeboard or user RfC are the only options left now. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If we can't change the title to match the article another option might be to change the article to match the title. In other-words rewrite the article to be about actual "tree shaping" and not Pooktre. Then the impetus would be on other editors to show the term "tree shaping" is not used to mean that which it is used to mean. Colincbn (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably not a good idea. It would be seen by many as disruptive. Like you, I have no real interest in arborsculpture but I see what is happening on that page as an attack on the integrity of WP. It seems that one editor is able to manipulate the whole system for commercial advantage. I think COI noticeboard and user RfCs are the only way to go. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Except for User:Blackash, everyone who has opined on the matter of the arborsculpture article, even those disagreeing with us, seems to have the improvement of Wikipedia as a motive. Please keep that in mind as we proceed. While I empathize with your level of frustration, statements like “...I suggest that you do not give up your day job” aren't going to help our cause. Thanks. --Griseum (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to know what to say when dealing with frivolous non-sequiturs but I take your point. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

She is now trying to rid the entire article of the word Arborsculpture. I have never brought another user to the noticeboards, but I think someone must. I do not know the procedure but if someone can point me to the right way of doing it I suppose I would be willing. Colincbn (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I can only suggest a user conduct RfC. I do not know exactly how you do this but I know it need two complaints. I am happy to support you in opening one. The alternative is just to revert all removals of the 'Arborsculpture'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ministerpräsident

Voting has started here. Kingjeff (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Second round of voting has started. Kingjeff (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, friend

I'm reopening an old can of worms. Your input is welcomed... Talk:IBM_and_the_Holocaust Carrite (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Draft on fermentation for article kimchi

Hi. This is the draft I wrote on fermentation process for the article kimchi which you suggested me to write. Please have a look and tell me what you think. I sent the same draft to User:Knorrepoes too, and asked him to proofread and revise it. Thanks. Hkwon (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The vegetables are sliced, highly seasoned with ingredients such as red pepper, onion, and garlic, and fermented in brine traditionally in large earthenware jars. Dried and salted shrimp, anchovy paste, and oysters are sometimes used as additional seasonings. The fermentation process is initiated by various microorganisms originally present in the raw materials, but is gradually dominated by lactic acid bacteria. Numerous physicochemical and biological factors influence the fermentation, growth, and sequential appearance of principal microorganisms involved in the fermentation. The early and intermediate phases of fermentation are considered crucial to the taste of kimchi. When optimally ripened, acidity increases with sourness and a unique flavor with refreshing and coolness results from ethanol and other products.

During fermentation, which takes approximately one month depending on weather conditions, the kimchi jars are stored totally or partially underground in cellars or sheds built expressly for this purpose. Recently, however, kimchi refrigerators have become very popular in South Korea. This household electronic device maintains the temperature for the proper fermentation of kimchi, saving the trouble of burying kimchi jars underground.

It looks OK to me but I know nothing about the subject. I was also hoping that thes section might say when kimchi is fermented and under what circumstances it is eaten unfermented. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of Spitsbergen RFC

I've refactored my comment, and replied to your question at the RFC. Let me know if there are any further issues. Mjroots (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it was my mistake, I misread the heading - see reply on talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Please check out [7].Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will add my thoughts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice of ANI Discussion (Fut.Perf's topic ban of Hkwon)

Hello. 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.Qwyrxian (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Confidential mediation

Belatedly replied[8] to you at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee/Policy. I've been on holiday, and so unable to respond until now. Hope you're well, AGK 16:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I have replied on the mediation page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

interjections in talk

Martin - You've lately been breaking up comments without making it clear who's saying what. I've fixed a couple of these but can you please be more careful about this? In general, there's usually no reason you need to interject. Adding your comments at the end is almost always just fine. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it makes it easier to address individual points, I will try to be more careful. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

PQ 18 OOB

Hah! beat me to it! I was drafting a proposal for just that. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW the entry for Oligarch in "Merchant ships" was the same; did you have a reason for not doing that too? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I just missed it. Pleas feel free to change it, we seem to have a consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Redefinition of the Metre in 1983

The article Redefinition of the Metre in 1983 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reason for this to be a separate article. This appears to be mainly about the speed of light rather than the Metre. The main article on Metre already mentions this redefinition as is the appropriate place for this.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Redefinition of the Metre in 1983

I have nominated Redefinition of the Metre in 1983, an article that 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/Redefinition of the Metre in 1983. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

MHP analysis

Okay Martin how general do you want the problem to be?Nijdam (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Standard game rules, Monty always offers the swap and always opens an unchosen goat-hiding door. Initial car placement, player initial door choice, and host goat door choice not specified. Was there something in particular that you were thinking of? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Spitsbergen, (again!)

Hello Martin
Ive moved your comment down, as it was confusing where it was ( I trust you take no offense) and Ive replied (it's here).Xyl 54 (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I was just trying to make my position clear, which is that the place is now properly called 'Spitsbergen' in English. I agree any historic names of other things ,such as the 'Spitzbergen group' of ships should be spelled as thay were a the time. Please let me know if this is not clear and I will clarify. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

reformat

Hi. I reformatted because at first I didn't see your comment that was within my message unsigned and it might be confusing to others by being placed that way, as far as who said what. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge decision for Redefinition of meter in 1983 at DRV

Thanks for drawing my attention to this. I have responded at the deletion review - basically, I made a mistake in judging the consensus in this case, and would support the decision being overturned to no consensus. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. What happens now? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure. From the DRV, I would have thought that it will be overturned - but how that's done (and when) I'm not sure - it'll be an education for me too! I assume that the admin who closes the DRV will do the deed. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, it's too bad I didn't see the message in time to participate. I would have suggested "overturn to keep" based on 1) existence of multiple reliable sources, 2) WP is not paper, and 3) the fact that it was an especially important redefinition of the unit. Also, this is fundamentally an editing question (structurally speaking, how can we most effectively present the information about the history of the meter) rather than a notability one, so it is not proper for AfD's, but should rather be discussed on the talk pages.

It's an example of a growing awkward side effect of the AfD culture - that related topics tend to get crammed into big unreadable monster articles, lest each part individually get deleted. In the big picture, this is detrimental to one of wikipedias core structural advantages over paper - namely the "mass of concise readable articles nicely interlinked" paradigm. It also makes it difficult to maintain interlinks to specific sub-topics. For example, if a reader is on a page about scientific redefinitions and clicks a link to the 1983 redefinition of the meter, she will get redirected to the article on the meter, when she is only looking for information about the particular redefinition. This happens to me all the time when I'm simply reading wikipedia and it's very annoying. AfD hero (talk) 05:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. The issue has been resolved now, the article was reprieved and it has now ben expanded to incluse the whole history of the metre. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Mediation resumes

The mediation of the MHP case has re-started. If you wish to participate, would you be willing to check in on the case talk page here? Note that the mediators have asked that participants agree to certain groundrules. Sunray (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Martin. I have spent all day "doing my stuff" on the mediation page. In an effort to decrease my verbosity I put up some footnotes to my new mediation page contributions on my talk page. Still struggling with how to do links in wikipedia and how to get notifications when important things are changed. I hope you have time to take a look and do please comment, in whichever way you like. Gill110951 (talk)

SoL and the asymmetry of the krypton line

I thought I'd reply here to your question about how the asymmetry of the krypton line increases the measurement uncertainty of the SoL measurement, as I don't think it's controversial and the section on the talk page is getting very long ;)

What happens with an asymmetric line in interferometry is that the interference fringes get "smudged out" – that is, they are broader than would be expected for a simple Lorentzian line shape and so the fall-off in intensity between fringes is more gradual. As you're not actually "counting" fringes, but measuring intensity over a (relative) length scale, so as to be able to get "thousandths of fringes" for example, the lower variation in intensity over length means that you can be so sure as to how far along the fringe you are (for any given precision of intensity measurement, to which there are of course limits). So yes, this appears in your random measurement uncertainties as well.

I hope this clarifies things for you, feel free to drop me a line if you want to discuss it further. Physchim62 (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Time out?

Hello Martin, do you take a break or something alike, or can we continue the analysis of MHP?Nijdam (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I am still here. I must have missed your most recent posts. Please could your read and respond to my comment on the analysis talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Martin, please continue the discussion on the combined doors solution. Nijdam (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Birds

Hi Martin. Please note that it is a Bird Project convention that all bird species are fully capped, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Who am I to argue, but this a new one to me. How widespread (outside WP) is this convention? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Monty Hall discussion

I have moved this to its own page at User_talk:Martin_Hogbin_Monty_Hall_discussion Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for feedback on a draft

If you're willing, I would appreciate some feedback and criticism from you on trimming "bloat", smoothing out the parts where the text was merged, indicating important points that should be included, and whatever else on a draft for a merged article to replace the Centrifugal force and Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) articles. In writing the draft and in the rationale for a merger, I'm looking at example #3 at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Deciding_to_disambiguate where this would be the primary topic for the most common usage, with a hatnote to the one other usage of the term (the reactive centrifugal force). I realize that it is still a bit of a frankenstein cut-and-paste from the other two pages, but I didn't want to lose some of the good work and wording by other editors. I've found that it is helpful when advocating for a change to present a concrete example of an alternative rather than an abstract idea, so I'd like to get a polished (but not necessarily perfect) draft together before restarting a merge discussion. So like I said, any feedback and criticism would appreciated. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we sandbox this somewhere. Rather than a hatnote to another article I would suggest just a section 'Alternative meanings'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: sandboxing - do you mean a sandbox in article space as opposed to my userspace? In other words, where is the appropriate "somewhere"? --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No anywhere is fine with me. Actually I am not so sure it is a good idea to do it this way round now. I think it be difficult to get consensus for replace a whole article with a pre-written one. I think it would be best to work on the two articles as they are now with a view to proposing a merge again. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

arbitration case

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Monty Hall problem and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Rick Block (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem opened

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @144  ·  02:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Martin - a number of the edits in your evidence section are anonymous - is this you logged out? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I forgot to log in. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You're still a bit over on your wordcount in the evidence section (around 350 words). It is a valuable contribution, but do you think you could rewrite it a little shorter, or indicate if anything you have said is a direct response to evidence elsewhere (as that is generally not included in the 1000 words). Thanks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oblateness in the plane of rotation

So what caused the oblateness of the earth in its plane of rotation?WFPM (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Everything below is from the viewpoint of Newtonian physics.

Some philosophy of physics

You can ignore this bit if you like.

Physics does not purport to explain in an absolutely fundamental sense why things happen. Physicists leave that to philosophers and the religious. Physics aims to generate an accurate, and preferably philosophically pleasing, quantitative model of what does happen, that is all.

I certainly agree with that!!!!WFPM (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Frames of reference

You said that you were confused about frames of reference. A reference frame is a conceptual framework (it has no physical reality) against which all distances and motion are measured. You might think of it as a grid of invisible lines. These lines could be in a rectangular grid, like 3D graph paper or in polar coordinates, like the lines of latitude and longitude on the Earth. Whether we measure something to be moving or not, or whether we measure it to be accelerating or not depends on what frame of reference we measure it against. When I was reading Einstein about his theory of relativity he made the point that when an observer was stationary or even in non-accelerated motion in Euclidian space, all other non-accelerated motion would be observed to be in a straight line. So when you track non-linear motion, you are in some kind of non-Euclidian motion.WFPM (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Inertial frames

Although whether we measure something to be accelerating or not depends on our frame of reference, there does seem to be a fundamental difference between motion at a constant speed in a straight line, and acceleration. This difference is embodied in Newton's laws, which tell us that a body continues in a straight line at constant speed unless a force acts upon it. A body with no forces acting on it is said to move inertially. A reference frame in which every point is moving inertially is an inertial frame, in other words, if there wire no forces like gravity acting (say in outer space), you could place a marble at every intersection of your grid lines of an inertial frame and it would just stay there. Inertial frames are very natural, and it is only in inertial frames that Newton's laws apply. This sounds like observations made by an observer that is stationary or in non-acceleration linear motion.WFPM (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-inertial frames

A non inertial is one which is accelerating in one way or another. This could be linear acceleration or rotation, which is a constant acceleration towards the center of rotation. In an accelerating frame an object moving inertially would be measured to accelerate, thus Newton's laws do not apply in a non-inertial frame, unless we adjust them in some way. Non-inertial frames are weird. Weird to explain with relation to Newton's principles, which still apply to the motion.WFPM (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Measurements in different frames

The values for distance, velocity, and acceleration depend on the reference frame in which we measure them but it is a generally accepted principle of physics (and common sense) that what happens is the same in any reference frame. The Earth bulges at the equator whether you describe the physics in an inertial frame, a frame rotating with the Earth, or a frame rotating in the opposite direction. All that changes is the explanation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

But you can make statements which don't involve frames of reference, like that the earth is oblate, and infer from that that there is a force of repulsion of material in the outward direction from the axis and in the plane of axial rotation that is a factor in controlling the non-spherical shape of the material of the earth, which would otherwise be spherical due to the action of the gravitational force.WFPM (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The shape of the Earth is, of course, the same in any frame of reference but the explanation as to why this is so differs according to your reference frame, see below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Why the Earth bulges at the equator

Explanation in a non-rotating frame

In a non-rotating frame a small piece of rock at the equator is moving as the Earth spins. The only forces acting on it are the gravitational force of the rest of the Earth and any elastic forces between it and the rest of the Earth. It its inertia makes it tend to move in a straight line as the gravitational and elastic forces of the rest of the Earth pull it continuously round in a circular path. Just as the water does in a cf pump, the piece of earth on the equator tends to move outward from the Earth in its inertial tendency to continue in a straight line.

The rock adopts the right position so that the combination of elastic and gravitation forces are just right to cause it to move in a circular orbit of slightly greater radius that the average for the Earth.

So now we have to examine as to what constitutes the so called elastic force that counteracts the so called gravitational centrical attractive force on the earths constituent materials. And then we note that the materials are rotating around the center of gravitational attraction of the earth. And thus on an individual mass value basis we conceive as to the existence of a force of repulsion of the rotating individual mass, and determine its value to be proportional to its kinetic energy value, divided by its radius of circular motion value. and we name that the "Centrifugal force" value. And since it's an operative force, why should we deny its existence.WFPM (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Because such a force is not necessary to explain what happens the material that makes up the Earth at the equator tries to continue in a straight line. In a gravitational system the direction of motion is toward the center of gravity. Only in a rotating system is there motion at right angles to the axis of rotation, and that motion has to be constrained to prevent the radius from expanding. And that force of restraint acts against the force of gravitational attraction in the equatorial plane as per Sokolnikoff.

Besides that's what it said in my Sokolnikoff reference.WFPM (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)However, when you get right down to fundamentals, Purists have a right to deny the legitimacy of both the instantaneous centrifugal and gravitational force values on the basis that they are not values in a constant direction but are momentary values in a transient direction. And that's where you get into arguments about the rules of Euclidian geometry activity.WFPM (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't. I thought that you were interested in learning some physics, not telling me about 'Euclidian geometry activity'.Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to learn about the rules of physical activity, and what we have here is what Paul Newman called "a lack of communications" about the details.WFPM (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Explanation in a frame rotating with the Earth

Problems involving the Earth are often ones where use of a rotating frame can make things easier. In a frame rotating with the Earth, every point on the Earth is stationary. To explain the bulge in the equator, we invoke an special force that is required to make Newton's laws apply in our rotating frame, this is the centrifugal force, which pulls the equator out. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)The only frame that I can think of where every point of the earth of the earth is stationary is that at the earth's center of gravity and in a rotating condition matching that of the earth. And from that frame we would never even notice that the earth was rotating.WFPM (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)And if the frame were not rotating, we could notice the lateral motion of the earth's constituents and thus the amount of their angular motion. But we wouldn't be able to measure the axial distance and it would look like the image of our system of starlight illumination and we wouldn't know about the oblateness of the system.WFPM (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC) But if the oblateness exists and we can't avoid the issue, we must assume the existence of some force capable of shaping the 3 dimensional property spacial distribution of the earth's material constituents. And that seems to be due to the fact that in linear motion all the masses components partake equally in the contained Kinetic energy of the system, whereas in circular motion they don't and thus require a special set of rules that explains how the contained kinetic energy is distributed among the constituents of the rotating matter, and which involves the angular rotation and resulting angular momentum value properties of the individual masses of the matter.WFPM (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC) And since both linear and angular momentum values increase with linear velocity values, whereas the kinetic energy value increases as the linear velocity squared, it may be stated that the angular momentum of a rigid system of rotation increases in proportion to the square root of the increase in kinetic energy.WFPM (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)And thus, under a condition of stable rotary motion, there is no way for a linear force to correct this unbalance in contained kinetic energy, but only a way to add or subtract an incremental amount of kinetic energy, which is internally equitably distributed among the rotating system constituent mass values.WFPM (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that your understanding of physics is different from mine, there is no point continuing this conversation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

As to Newton's understanding of the concept of Centrifugal force, you might read what he said about it in Volume 2 of his Principia.WFPM (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)