[WikiEN-l] Ha Ha Ha you are so funny Jimbo!!

Thommandel at aol.com Thommandel at aol.com
Sat May 6 16:18:50 UTC 2006

In a message dated 5/5/2006 9:32:37 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
m.g.gallagher at 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  
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 
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 
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

More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list