User talk:Miguel
|
|
Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or drop me a line. Cheers! --maveric149
Given your conversation with User:JoeM, you may be interested in helping to improve common sense conservative.
Hey Miguel! Thanks for pointing out the spider/FooBar inconsistency on my User page, well spotted! ;-) Nice job on self-organization, the page is looking pretty respectable. Perhaps we could suggest it go on the front page in the "New articles", as some of them have been there for a few days. -- Lexor 21:34, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Salut Miguel. I appreciate your work on Jean-Marie Le Pen. I have no idea how to get people to agree that the Le Pen article is NPOV. In a certain sense it's a test for Wikipedia NPOV policy. The problem with le Pen is that there many people have some irrational sympathy for him. Obviously Anthere is not of suporters but she feels that the article fail NPOV. I've tried to write some facts with references and avoid as much as possible judgement. But with Le Pen facts will give a rather negative feeling. Strangeless it seems nobody has found positive facts to balance the article. Except the fact that le Pen studied at the university and voluntered for Algeria and things like that... When you read what le Pen write or say.... well it stinks (to say the less), and everything that le Pen say is said with extreme care because there are laws in France that that prevent the expression of Nazi, racist or anti-Semitic ideology. Very few people will say "I agree with le Pen" but they believe there's something positive because le Pen is "against current establishment". That's the key of the problem with fascism : this is mainly irrationnal. I have searched for fact or quote to balance the article I can't find anything. I remember when le Pen was the guest in "Le Tribunal des Flagrants Délires" (a radio show on France Inter where personnalities were judged by humorists) while all other guest showed some sense of humor (even Arlette Laguiller made some good jokes). I can't remenber any good joke from le Pen. My conclusion is we don't have to try to convice anyone. We should go on feeding the article with documented facts and let's see what happen.
Ericd 00:41, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Hi Miguel, just noticed that you marked the addition of a sentence to the Talk:Albert Einstein page as a 'minor edit'. If that was an accident, ignore me, but if not then I'll just let you know that generally, minor edits are supposed to be things like adding a wikilink, fixing a wiki, spelling, etc. Adding a comment is never a minor edit. Later, Isomorphic 08:08, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
Radical centrist?
Hi Miguel, I noticed you made a change to the radical centrist page, but I couldn't figure out what, exactly. Perhaps you can clarify on the talk page? Drernie 00:47, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Anarchism
Dear Miguel, your modification to Anarchism's section on information technology changes was most excellent and improved the paragraph immensely. Thanks, User:fifelfoo 3 March 2004
Dear Miguel, I disagree with your removal of some of the historical events from the "see also" section at the bottom. (3.58 and 4.01 5 March). I am tempted to revert them! I think its useful to put the series of events in a context, or to fold them all into either functioning anarchies and / or history as a group. The importance is having links to major events in one place in relation to one another. Fifelfoo 22:10, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Spanish
Dear Miguel, I see you are working, if your Ph.D. can wait, please goto Loop Quantum Gravity es: and see translation. Leave comments in Talk. Por supuesto prefiero el castellano. aún en en:. Saludos. DefLog 17:01, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Otra: una miradita a lazo de Wilson es:, sobre todo 'framing' y 'fuerte interacción' (obviamente no 'interacción fuerte'). Gracias. DefLog 23:14, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Gracias. 'framing' queda DefLog 23:35, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- No, si ya lo sé ;-) Miguel
--
Quadragesimo Anno
Could you please write Quadragesimo Anno [1] (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno_en.html)? -- Kaihsu 15:19, 2004 May 4 (UTC)
Limited Sovereignty
Sorry if I came off sounding argumentative, particularly when I think our views on this are similar. That phrase limited sovereignty just ticks me off. I hate it when officials weasel out of things by successfully changing the meanings of words. The locution you've used, "what the US government terms limited sovereignty" is fine, because it at least indicates there is some question about the term; thanks. Dpbsmith 19:04, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
Hola de Berlin
I saw you are a Spanish guy in America, so I thought you might be interested in a project I have started. It is about learning, especially languages. Please check my page and let me know. Get-back-world-respect 23:19, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
What's up with me?
[No acentos por teclado bananero]
Nada especial, salvo que ultimamente me han dicho cosas como "yo no reconozco ningun derecho a la privacidad ni al honor", y asi (un sysop) y la gente se quedaba tan ancha....... entonces me he preguntado "¿Que hago aqui y para que contribuyo?" y estoy aun pensandolo... No he llegado a ninguna conclusion todavia.
La semana pasada estuve haciendo unos ejercicios esprituales (no pense en la wikipedia, eran mas profundos :) y no te he contestado hasta ahora por eso.
Hope everything goes fine with you and your PhD. Me parece que no siges los debates en la mailing list.
I think I think too much on everything.
Gracias por el interes. Pfortuny 10:51, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
Request for AMA assistance
We have received an anonymous request for AMA assistance from an IP address, I have directed that individual to contact me if they wish not to create a Wikipedia account. If you are interested in helping please let me know and if I hear from this individual I will try and put you in contact. See Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance. Thank you. — © Alex756 03:08, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Another request for AMA assistance
I am requesting assistance with respect to an edit war over article Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche is undoubtably an unusually controversial person; I began editing an article that had obviously been subject to many, many edits already. I was scrupulous about acknowledging the controversy, and the existence of opposing viewpoints; I concentrated on addressing outright falsehood, or dubious assertions made without documentation.
The problem began when User:Adam_Carr simply eliminated the article, and posted a new one, which is a fanatical attack, and would be considered libelous back in the days when libel laws were taken seriously. He simultaneously proclaimed his intention to pursue a revert war. He was supported in this by User:John_Kenney, who also took the position that no article should be permitted that was not a full-on character assassination.
As soon as I reached the conclusion that Adam would not discuss, only revert (it appears that he has an history of this approach to disputes), I posted a request for mediation. The page (Adam's version) was protected by User:Mirv on June 21. Both Adam and John refused mediation.
In subsequent discussion, John (who is a sysop) became somewhat more open to negotiation, but has not participated now for several days. Adam has indicated that he has no intention of negotiating anything.
More than a week has gone by, and I feel that the page as presently protected is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. I would like to explore other avenues to resolve this conflict.-- --Herschelkrustofsky 20:50, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Loop quantum gravity
Sorry Miguel, please don't let my comments de-motivate you. I'm generally sympathetic to the article and your editing of it. OTOH, of course your comments on becoming the de-facto maintainer of the page are valid. I considered doing something myself, but I'm too far from the actual proceedings (did my diploma 20 years ago, in AQFT, and working totally outside the field since then). Pjacobi 21:13, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Re: History of Spain
This might set a record for the 'longest time it has ever taken for someone to respond to a message.' You sent me a message way, way back in April about the History of Spain article, but I never checked my talk page. Sorry. :)
Anyway, your top-down approach is definitely an excellent way to start on things, particularly given the state of the History of Spain article if one scrolls down very far at all. There is a lot on Spanish history already in the Wiki, just that it isn't actually pulled together into the History of Spain article very well.
If you're still interested, I would be most happy to help any way I can to work up the history on the Spain#History section and elsewhere in the Wiki. Adam Faanes 09:56, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have tried to shorten the Spain history here but it still might take some shortening - I'm not sure how long it ought to be, and I'm not sure how much we want to shear away. It's not too much longer than the France/United Kingdom histories. The Germany article is much longer. Adam Faanes 01:50, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
WP:COTW
Hi, thought you might be interested in voting to get Culture of Spain to be the collaboration of the week. With a few more votes it may win and we can have a great, eventually featured article. Please see that page. - Taxman 16:11, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
algebra of random variables
Hello. In light of objections expressed by several persons at Talk:Stochastic process, who seemed to be planning on simply deleting the "algebraic approach" section, apparently written by you, I have moved that material to a new article, algebra of random variables. I have created links to that new article from five other pages. Michael Hardy 02:28, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Various discussions
Thanks for pointing out the problrm with my user talk (probably my ISP having a bad morning). On the LQG pages: you generally have been acting reasonably, while others have not. It is difficult to do anything very positive while the situation seems so volatile.
Charles Matthews 06:41, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
- Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
- Multi-Licensing Guide
- Free the Rambot Articles Project
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
- Option 1
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
- Option 2
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit§ion=new)| talk)
About an image you uploaded.
Howdy! I'm here because of the Humungous Image Tagging Project, and I'm curious about the copyright status of an image you uploaded. The picture in question is Image:11-M.jpeg, and it doesn't currently have an image copyright tag on it. If you could tag it with something to let us know what the copyright is, that would be great. A couple of common tags are {{gfdl}}, if you made the picture and release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use. For a full page of these, you can go to the image copyright tags page. If none of this makes sense, you can leave a message describing the coypright status on my talk page, and I'll tag it for you. Thanks much! ^_^ --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 23:18, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
Congratulaciones
Ditto. DefLog
¡Felicitaciones!
Acabo de ver esto
- I am a Spanish mathematical physicist based in California. I obtained my Ph.D. from the University of California at Riverside on 2004 December 11.
¡Pues, te felicito!. ¡Y no te desaparezcas! CSTAR 22:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Stochastic processes
Hi Miguel. I've been doing some work on this page, which I see you've also had a lot to do with. I'd like to know what you think if you have any time free.... SgtThroat 01:14, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
11-M image
I changed the 11-M image on your user page, since the larger jpg one was deleted. I hope you don't mind. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 20:30, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
Call for AMA election
AMA Member Advocate,
There's a poll currently in the AMA Homepage about making a new AMA Coordinator election. Please, cast your vote there (though it's not mandatory). Any comments you have about this, write it on the AMA Homepage talk page. Cheers, --Neigel von Teighen 18:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Proposals for AMA Membership Meeting
As AMA Coordinator I am requesting that suggestions be placed on Wikipedia:AMA Membership Meeting plans for our first membership meeting, to be held in the near future, (hopefully before any election occurs.) Since we have never had any kind of "official" meeting we need to discuss how this will occur (i.e. Wiki pages or IRC channel), how it will be structured (i.e. meeting agenda) and if there will be any "chair" to supervise the meeting and meeting "secretary" to write up minutes or keep some kind of official record of what transpires. Thanks in advance for your input and your continued work as an advocate. — © Alex756 19:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OFFICIAL AMA MEETING NOTICE
The first AMA Membership meeting will be held on Sunday January 23, 2005 at 19:00 UTC on freenode IRC channel #AMA. That is 2 PM Eastern NA Time, 11 AM Pacific NA Time, and 8 PM Central European (Amsterdam/Stokholm/Warsaw/Venice) Time. All members are invited to attend.
Logs of first AMA Membership meeting
You may view the log of the first meeting on the following two pages: Wikipedia:AMA IRC Meeting log (1-23-05) (first hour) and Wikipedia:AMA IRC Meeting log (1-23-05) Pt II (remainder of meeting). If you are interested in commenting on the agenda of the meeting please do so here:Wikipedia:AMA Meeting (suggested topics).
OFFICIAL SECOND MEETING NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
- "The second AMA Membership meeting will be held on Sunday January 30 2005 at 19:00 UTC on freenode IRC channel #AMA. That is 2 PM Eastern NA Time, 11 AM Pacific NA Time, and 8 PM Central European (Amsterdam/Stokholm/Warsaw/Venice) Time. All members are invited to attend." The coordinator is requesting that members submit the following information for the upcoming coordinator’s report:
- How many individuals did you help as an advocate
- What is the maximum amount of time you put into a case
- Do you feel your work as an advocate was successful?
- How can the advocacy program of the AMA be improved?
Thank you. Please submit your responses here: Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator/January 2005 Survey
OFFICIAL AMA MEETING NOTICE
OFFICIAL THIRD MEETING NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
The second AMA IRC Membership meetingwas held on Sunday January 30, 2005 at 19:00 UTC on freenode.net IRC channel #AMA. Attending were Wally, Metasquares, Anthere, Sam Spade, and alex756 (coordinator). The log of the second meeting can be found here: Wikipedia:AMA IRC Meeting log (1-30-05).
"The third AMA Membership meeting will be held on Saturday February 12, 2005 at 17:00 UTC on freenode IRC channel #AMA. That is 12:00 Noon Eastern NA Time, 9 AM Pacific NA Time, and 6 PM Central European (Amsterdam/Stokholm/Warsaw/Venice) Time. All members are invited to attend.
Suggested Topics and Specific Proposals
- MEMBERS PLEASE REVIEW
- Suggestions for topics/proposals and agenda to be discussed at the next meeting are to be found at: Wikipedia:AMA Meeting (suggested topics). All members are requested to make proposals there and respond to proposals on the talk page there before the beginning of the next meeting so discussion can be held forthwith concerning such proposals. Thank you, your Coordinator.
The coordinator is requesting that members who have not done so already submit the following information for the upcoming coordinator’s report:
- How many individuals did you help as an advocate
- What is the maximum amount of time you put into a case
- Do you feel your work as an advocate was successful?
- How can the advocacy program of the AMA be improved?
Thank you. Please submit your responses here. — © Alex756 23:17, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
New Mathematics Wikiportal
I noticed you've done some work on Mathematics articles. I wanted to point out to you the new Mathematics Wikiportal- more specifically, to the Mathematics Collaboration of the Week page. I'm looking for any math-related stubs or non-existant articles that you would like to see on Wikipedia. Additionally, I wondered if you'd be willing to help out on some of the Collaboration of the Week pages.
I encourage you to vote on the current Collaboration of the Week, because I'm very interested in which articles you think need to be written or added to, and because I understand that I cannot do the enormous amount of work required on some of the Math stubs alone. I'm asking for your help, and also your critiques on the way the portal is set up.
Please direct all comments to my user-talk page, the Math Wikiportal talk page, or the Math Collaboration of the Week talk page. Thanks a lot for your support! ral315 02:54, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Notation for the empty set: "{}" vs. "∅"
I do not really know if you care but I will tell you anyhow. Just today I realized what you meant by saying
- I would say that {} is the empty set, while <math>\emptyset<math> is a symbol for it. Which notation to use should depend on the context.
in [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive5#Notation_for_the_empty_set:_.22.7B.7D.22_vs._.26empty.3B)
I think you are completely correct. <math>\emptyset<math> is a name which is usually used for empty sets in the same way as t is usually used for a variable which changes with time. So if for example I am talking about the topology of the set {0,1} I could say { } and {0,1} are open sets. But I might also define X:={0,1} and say X and <math>\emptyset<math> are open sets. So what symbol I use depends on the context. The confusion , at least in my case, arose because in some sense there is only one <math>\emptyset<math>, which is the equivalence class of all {}s. MathMartin 18:12, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- There's also <math>\varnothing<math>. Michael Hardy 00:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yes that's true:) But I think it would be very hard to construct a difference in meaning between <math>\emptyset<math> and <math>\varnothing<math>. They are (in some sense) on the same level of abstraction, whereas <math>\emptyset<math> and <math>\lbrace \rbrace<math> are not. MathMartin 16:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Bell's theorem etc
Hi Miguel I fear you may be precisely the wrong person to ask for help (I suspect that you have studied too much quantum theory!) but I shall ask anyway.
Last summer I expended considerable time and effort in modifying existing pages related to Bell's theorem so as to present the full facts of the matter, thus redressing the bias of the existing pages towards the quantum mechanical POV. The theorem was designed as a test between QM and local realism. The inequalities used are derived using the assumption of local realism. Since Bell's contribution consisted primarily of local realist arguments, I feel that the bias, if any, should be towards that POV.
I introduced new pages so as to give the reader the information he needs to judge whether or not the Bell test experiments have been conducted on a level playing field. Recently (starting in January) my new pages have been mauled and watered down, culminating in Pjabcobi's request for deletion of Bell inequalities and Bell test loopholes. It seems clear to me that the motivation behind this request was preservation of the status quo, protecting the public from "inconvenient" facts. The facts concerned are:
(a) the existence of many different Bell inequalities, not all equivalent. The ones featured in popular books are rarely the ones actually used. By failing to make the differences clear, the reader is left with the false impression that a "violation of a Bell inequality" is a convincing proof the local realism does not work. See Bell inequalities (currently re-directed, most of the material having got lost).
(b) the existence and empirical importance of the various Bell test loopholes (now re-directed, a little of the material being incorporated into Bell test experiments).
Throughout the discussions, every conflict has been resolved in favour of the status quo, arguing (when all else failed) that I am a crank, attempting self-promotion and advocating my own POV. My version of the matter is that my opponents have been attempting to suppress inconvenient facts in order to safeguard the opinion that quantum entanglement is convincingly supported by the experiments. [I think, incidentally, that my continued efforts to publicise the above facts despite all refs to my own work having now been removed is evidence that this is not a matter of self-promotion.]
There are certainly others out there who share my POV! Unfortunately, I have been unable to find anyone with sufficient confidence in the subject to actively support me. I am tempted to list the authorities who have not treated me as a crank, but do not wish to be accused of name-dropping. Perhaps, though, I can do so here. Experts with whom I have corresponded and who like my Chaotic Ball model (http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0210150) include Abner Shimony, Philippe Grangier, Frank Laloe (among the proponents of "accepted" theory), and Franco Selleri, Trevor Marshall, Emilio Santos among the "dissidents".
Caroline Thompson 10:51, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wait a minute
Miguel, as you can see for yourself in all the relevant talk pages (particularly, Bell's theorem and on my User talk page which is now archived) , I and others have expended a great deal of effort in locating and cleaning up Caroline Thompson's viewpoints sprinked quite liberally throughout wikipedia. You will note that Thompson has not spared me in particular of attacks (that I am ignorant of this that and the other, I am unqualified etc.)
The current Bell's theorem article which Thompson vociferously rails about is quite standard based on material from Asher Peres book and Nielsen and Chuang. Writing that page took nearly a month, having to deal at every turn with a very hostile Thompson.
As to Thompson's claim:
- every conflict has been resolved in favour of the status quo, arguing (when all else failed) that I am a crank, attempting self-promotion and advocating my own POV.
Whoa! All her arguments have been refuted, in a painstakingly clear and methodical way. BTW, I have never used the word crank in the context of an argument with CT, although yes, now that she brings it up, she is a notorious crank. I do admit, that when she did claim at one point to be an authority on the matter, I placed, without comment a link to one of the crank pages [3] (http://www.crank.net/physics.html).
Thanks CSTAR 23:21, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
New Mathematics Project Participants List
Hola Miguel.
In case you didn't follow the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Reformat of Participants list, I'm writing to you to let you know that I've converted the "WikiProject Mathematics Participants List" into a table. It is now alphabetical, includes links to the participant's talk page and contribution list, and has a field for "Areas of Interest". Since your name is on the list, I thought you might want to check and/or update your entry.
Regards, Paul August ☎ 21:07, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for the heads-up on the Valencian wikipedia section. Quite frankly I'm rather indignant about the whole sham. You're absolutely right about not entering some IQ-reducing "revert dispute", though I hope the other character isn't immune to reason and common sense. Latinoeuropa
Article reversion
Would you mind explaining the reversion of my edits on the article on the Exponential family? — Miguel 07:14, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
It said:
- A is important in its own right, as it the cumulant-generating function of the probability distribution of the sufficient statistic T(X) when the distribution of X is H.
You changed it to:
- A is important in its own right, as it is the cumulant-generating function of the probability distribution of the sufficient statistic T(X).
The edit consisted of deleting the words "when the distribution of X is H. The statement doesn't make sense without those words. A cumulant-generating function is always a cumulant-generating function of some particular probability distribution.
I see now that you also changed some other things. I haven't looked at those closely, but I now see that you changed "cdf" to "Lebesgue-Stieltjes integrator". I don't think that change makes sense either. That it is the Lebesgue-Stieltjes integrator is true, but the fact that it is the cdf is more to the point in this context. Michael Hardy 21:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
reply regarding normal distribution
And you thought you were avoiding controversial topics? Sorry about my prickly response. No offense was taken. I find it a difficult topic and apparently there was too big a gap in our understandings of this for either of us to figure out what I was having trouble with. Thanks for the additional replies. alteripse 15:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) Thanks for the additional clarification. The article looks like it addresses my interest directly. alteripse 11:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Math
Just a remark. On Wikipedia, one writes math as
<math>\varepsilon</math>
instead of $\varepsilon$. I will now fix your addition to Linear regression. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov 20:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)