In a message dated 5/5/2006 9:32:37 P.M. Central Daylight Time, m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au writes: Do you ... actually *contribute* to Wikipedia? The image you present here is of someone who stumbled across Wikipedia, started editing articles in a manner that conflicted with our neutrality policy without really knowing what on Earth you were doing, got pissed off (still without learning what was going on), showed up on the mailing list repeatedly asking the same ignorant question (and, when it was answered, repeatedly, still failed to understand anything), and has since just hung around like a bad smell, occasionally sallying forth to spray mucus onto the list and pretend it has any value. Please, mate, *try* editing Wikipedia. *Try* getting along with other people. *Try* working out how our core policies interact and how we work to write the encyclopaedia. You might just find, if you're willing to put in the effort, that you actually like it. And if you don't ... well, what are you doing here? Have you ever given even a thought to those of us who read your encyclopedia? How come I never once heard the word "reader"? Could it be because the thousand or so hits a day are from editors only? I have been on the Internet since Win 1.0, I have two websites of my own, and was the creator and webmaster for seven years of an international systems website. I was editor in chief of a University newspaper, editor of my own newsletter, created two of my own journals and have a paper "Operating principle of the Universe" in press at a peer reviewed science journal. I happen to love science and spend my spare time researching. I "stumbled" across Wikipedia looking for information on Plasma cosmology via Google. I was astounded at your so-called neutrality. Not only did the article define plasma incorrectly, the POV was obviously biased against plasma cosmology. Not to mention the very poor writing. So I really thought that one could make the necessary corrections but guess what? After spending an evening posting the corrections, they were simply reverted. So did you research my complaint? Or did you just assume that because I complained I had to be in the wrong? Why would I conform to your system? To conform to your system is to present a POV that is NOT neutral but is slanted toward the perspective of those who have nothing better to do than edit articles. Well, it turns out ladies and gentlemen, that the plasma cosmology article is dominated by the big bang advocates. I found it impossible to post anything which would suggest that there is a controversy about cosmology. Indeed, along with me was a plasma cosmologist who wrote the book "The Big Bang Never Happened" but he too was reverted until he finally went away. The lone plasma cosmology advocate was threatened and demeaned and he too is now quiet. I have been insulted repeatedly, for which BTW, I never returned fire. (Knowing full well what happens when one does that) This group of big bang advocates have essentially cleaned all the related articles about cosmology of any evidence that suggests that there is a controversy. Removal of critical evidence in some cases is a crime, in most cases it is not ethical. In all cases it is deceptive. According to them most cosmologists have discredited alternative cosmologies. Yet if one really does examine the evidence, it is the big bang theory that has been discredited. Interesting, because Plasma itself is not a theory, it makes up 99% of the Universe and is as real as electricity. Which, incidentally, is how they defined plasma to begin with. I confined my subsequent efforts to the talk pages, never fell for the revert trick, and when they started to remove stuff I wrote on the talk page, and I suggested that if they did that in the real world they would be taken to court, they blocked me. Twice. When I came to this list, and stated my problem, the first reply was "A good Wikipedian can do what he damn well pleases." What in the hell is that? And the subsequent replies were yes and yes and yes. The only rational reply came from a newbie who suggested that when an opponent edits the opposing article, a negative edit is not ethical. But that was the end of that. Does Wikipedia have any notion of what ethical behavior is? When a campaign manager tried to edit the opponent's page he ended up resigning. That's the real world guys. So you are a private company, and you can do as you damn well please. (Why the .org?) Tell Enron that. But some day it is going to come back and bite you big time. There may well be newspapers who have planted "editors" with selected (correct) information and are compiling the actions of your admins as we speak. You should do that too. Your encyclopedia is not "free" it is run by the powers to be, You joke about the "cabel" but what do you do about it? You support each other as if an admin can do no wrong. You have no control of the admins, and they don't expect any. You have no ethics program in place. There is no such thing as ethics in Wikipedia. Ethics is a joke. Your whole private system is becoming a joke. Serious researchers do not use Wikipedia, but the children do. And it is the children that will suffer. Our future is at stake and you all think it is a joke. In the real world, the police are not above the law. They have to stop at red lights just like the rest of us. They cannot steal just like the rest of us. They are expected to set examples, their standards of conduct are actually higher than the rest of us. And they are accountable to the rest of us. But in Wikipedia, the police are accountable to no one. They can and do form groups which support each other. They can insult, intimidate, and "do as they damn well please." Wikipedia is not honest. And it is not "mature." The kind of writing I read here would not last a single day in the real editorial world. So you can call me incompetent and pathological and disruptive and ignorant all you want, and you can delete my rantings too, but actually you are projecting your faults onto me and the likes of me. Oh, you have no faults, sorry. I see, the "stench" you smell is coming from me. Well, there is a cancer in your private business, and unless you cut it out, it will continue to grow until one day you will die. And, no, that is not a legal threat. I have no interest in taking you to court. But I will spend a lot of time telling the truth. I am not saying that everyone is corrupt. Nor am I suggesting that most are corrupt. But my experience with Wikipedia has been corrupted by only a small number,& and judging from the communications on this list, for example, nothing is or will be done about it. No wonder someone suggested that real names never be used. I regret that I have stated mine. No, I am not pissed off, I am scared shitless... Tommy Mandel PS. Just in case someone is interested in the problem, I have included below a transcript of part of the problem. The problem is that it is often said (elsewhere) that Hubble proved the expansion of the Universe hence, extrapolating backwards, the Big Bang theory. But in fact Hubble DID NOT prove expansion, he opposed the idea. Expansion comes from the assumption that redshift is Doppler caused an assumption that he did not agree with until his dying day. So when I tried to insert the following, it was deleted out. This is my serious attempt to work with Wikipedia - "The Doppler interpretation of the observed redshift is not without controversy. Non-standard cosmological theories dispute the Doppler assumption of the redshift, claiming instead, that the redshift is caused by intrinsic properties of interactions of light with matter. Supporting this conjecture, observations by W. Tifft show that the redshift has a periodic or quantized aspect which is not consistent with expansion.<ref>ttp://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/Tifft.pdf </ref> Previously, it has also been reported in the Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, by A Sandage as his Centennial Celebration of Hubble's birth, that Hubble himself did not consider redshift as an indicator of expansion, Sandage wrote: "Hubble concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution showed a large departure from Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes was calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction is required if no motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. " <ref>http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/1996/sandage_hubble.html</ref> The controversy remains to be resolved. " Then they deleted it out, from the big bang page, from the alternative cosmology page and from the plasma cosmology page. This is how it went on the talk page. Hubble's opinion What is the point of including in the article Hubble's opinion of the origin of the Hubble relation? An interesting bit of historical color? Argument from authority? Considering the progress in observational and theoretical cosmology in the last 70 years, it can hardly be considered relevant for the scientific argument, particularly since his objections appear to be philosophical, not observational, i.e. he just didn't like the idea of a finite-age universe. --_Art Carlson_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Art_Carlson) 14:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC) I agree with that, and would not object to its removal based on that argument. --_Iantresman_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Iantresman) 15:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC) The point is that it has been stated in many places that "Hubble proved the Universe is expanding" when in fact Hubble did not believe that. And what you call historical color is also called prior research. And what you call argument from authority is called verifiable research. And he did not base his opinion on philosophical grounds. So all your arguments are misleading and baseless and very suspicious as to motives _Tommy Mandel_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tommysun&action=edit) 13:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC) To start, Doppler redshift is not an observation, it is an assumption. Hubble did not agree with the standard assumption. Second, many cosmologists do not agree with the standard view that the redshift indicates expansion. While early attempts to account for the redshift were fruitless, recent research such as the CREIL effect can account for redshift. Thirdly, mentioned or not by other cosmologists, Tifft's findings are observations that are not consistent with expansion. Therefore, it is likely that redshift does not have a significant Doppler component. If this turns out to be the case, then Hubble's thinking is on the mark and thus relevant to the upcoming change in thinking. Especially when it is being claimed by many that "Hubble proved expansion." Lastly, if you read Sandage's account, philosophy does not enter into it. _Tommy Mandel_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tommysun&action=edit) 05:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC) None of this has anything to do with Plasma cosmology. Revert. --_ScienceApologist_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ScienceApologist) 06:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Are you certain about that, Joshua? There is an established body of knowledge which is essentially saying that the redshift is not caused by the assumed Doppler effect. Of course, as a big bang supporter, you realize that if this is true, then the big bang theory is no longer a viable theory. And then Plasma cosmology would rise to the occasion and become the theory of choice. Recall that Doppler redshift was not observed, it was added to Hubble's original equation by including "c" the velocity of light. This is what Hubble couldn't agree with, that by doing so a relationship between distance and expansion was established. I would also like to remind you, that intrinsic redshift is indeed a property of plasma. Essentially the evidence is indicating that the redshift is caused by interaction with plasma, although most cosmologists prefer to use the generic term "matter." Certainly you are aware that when matter is heated, by the center of a galaxy for instance, it becomes ionized, i.e., plasma? At any rate, Hubble's opinions belongs to "prior research" which all of science is committed to. _Tommy Mandel_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tommysun&action=edit) 16:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC) I would like to add, that in the real world, it is being stated over and over that "Hubble proved" the universe is expanding. This belief that Hubble "proved" expansion is not true. The relationship was assumed, not observed. As evidence, I submitted Hubble's true beliefs, which you then discarded. One would expect an encyclopedia to be informative about such situations. However, a serious researcher probably would not depend on Wikiinfo, nevertheless, students find it convenient, and there will be a price to pay if this encyclopedia promotes a theory which in the future will be shown to be false. I am not sure of the legal implications. Much depends on "intent to deceive" as well as the actual act of deception. The promotion of a theory which in the end is false, is indeed deceptive to start with. If it was purposely done, then the intent to deceive is also present. It is possible then, for Wikipedia to be sued by some party who can show she or he was injured by the deception. And in the case of the big bang theory, there are plenty of those. _Tommy Mandel_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tommysun&action=edit) 16:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Hmm. If that isn't a legal threat, it's dancing on the edge. _Art LaPella_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Art_LaPella) 17:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Pointing out that if Wikipedia knowingly publishes false information and thus can be sued by those who are injured by that false information, even if Wikipedia is a third party, is not a threat, it is a warning. I would, if I were you, be very careful _Tommy Mandel_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tommysun&action=edit) 18:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC) This is definitely a legal threat. You were warned before. I have notified the administrator who blocked you before for such behavior and we'll see what he says. --_ScienceApologist_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ScienceApologist) 18:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC) It is also spurious one, and a complete waste of everyone's time. (Then I was blocked for a week. The first time was because they removed my evidence from the talk page that they are big bang supporters, leaving only the links, which incidentally do not lead to the actual quotes) While you had me blocked for warning you, a campaign manager resigned because he edited the opponents Wikipage. _Tommy Mandel_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tommysun&action=edit) 13:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC) "Life is more dangerous, but it is not the fault of all those persons who are malignant (by nature), as it is the outcome of the many more who remain quiet waiting to see what will happen" Albert Einstein