User talk:Mmeijeri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

Here's some welcome cookies!

Welcome, Mmeijeri!

I noticed your work on Peter Bielkowicz, and thought I'd welcome you to Wikipedia. I'm Ged, and I've been editing here for quite a while. Thank you for your contributions, and I hope you like our encyclopedia project and decide to stay!

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Some other hints and tips:

  • Since you have created a username, you have the privilege of customizing your own user page, which is here.
  • When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date.
  • If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Thanks again for contributing to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! -- GedUK  09:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Boeing_crew_capsule_CCDEV.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Boeing_crew_capsule_CCDEV.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Melesse. I've added some extra information, I hope it's OK now.

Your Hostile Edits[edit]

You say my material is controversial. But I am the person who originally wrote the section "Gravitational potential expanded in series of Legendre polynomials". It was clear and understandable before people like you started changing it. What specifically do you accuse me of saying that is controversial? RHB100 (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ouch! It's a little harsh to call someone's edits "hostile" simply because they don't agree with you. And there is something to be said for rushing in where angels fear to tread, if you forgive the religious metaphor. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Article on gravitational potential is pathetic, only incompetents would think it is good[edit]

The article is very pathetic and poorly written. If you think it is good then you have very low standards. Sławomir Biały has managed to extend his sloppy style of writing to the section, "Gravitational potential expanded in series of Legendre polynomials". The incompetents can celebrate, led by Sławomir Biały they have succeeded in making the article even more pathetic.

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Gravitational potential[edit]

Hi Martijn,

I have made a few edits to gravitational potential. This time, I have done them one at a time so that each individual change is hopefully clearer. I would appreciate your input on the changes that I have made. Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

g-force[edit]

Hi,

Why do you claim that "If there are no other external forces than gravity, delta-v is the integral of the magnitude of the g-force." is wrong? The g-force on something is its acceleration relative to free-fall. This acceleration experienced by an object is due to the vector sum of non-gravitational forces acting per unit of the object's mass, in this case the thrust per unit mass.--Patrick (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think what you're trying to say is that if you're hovering, then you are precisely cancelling out gravity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmeijeri (talkcontribs)
This is not just about hovering, but general.--Patrick (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
You are right, I was confusing g-force with gravity. There's still a factor g in there, right, with g-force being measured in g's and acceleration in m/s^2?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmeijeri (talkcontribs)
g-force has the dimension of acceleration, it can be measured in g's or m/s^2.--Patrick (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

September 2010[edit]

Information.svg Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Robert H. Goddard. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Dr. Goddard graduated from South High School in Worcester in 1904 and earned his undergraduate degree from Worcester Polytechnic Institute in 1908. He began his graduate studies at Clark University in the fall of 1908. I am unaware--and can find no evidence--he ever attended RPI. If you have other information, please discuss on the Talk page. Otherwise, please stop messing up this article! — UncleBubba T @ C ) 18:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

False (and rude) accusation refuted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:UncleBubba#False_accusations_of_vandalism_at_Goddard Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
'Tain't false, my friend. While I have no idea what an "unmotivated change" is, the simple fact of the matter is that YOU changed the article to indicate that Dr. Goddard attended RPI when, in fact, that is patently incorrect. Please check your facts before reverting changes. (It appears the change you reverted was an attempt to clean up another editor's introduction of the same false information. Here is the diff of your edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_H._Goddard&curid=210597&diff=385557107&oldid=385553354)
As I said I merely reverted an unmotivated change and said so in the bleeping commit message. If the poster I reverted had done so too, this would not have happened. I'm happy to be informed I accidentally reintroduced false information introduced by yet another anonymous user and happy you fixed this. I'm not happy at being falsely accused of vandalism, apparently without so much as checking the commit message. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Also, please don't answer messages I place on your Talk page on my Talk page, it's hard to follow. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 18:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
OK Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

choked flow page[edit]

Please make this page more readable for the novice and the expert before brashly deleting well intended edits. The second introduction sentence: When a flowing fluid at a given pressure and temperature passes through a restriction (such as the throat of a convergent-divergent nozzle or a valve in a pipe) into a lower pressure environment, because of conservation of mass the fluid velocity must increase for initially subsonic upstream conditions as it flows through the smaller cross-sectional area of the restriction. may be scientifically correct, but it is a mouthful. The introduction should be written in a simpler style for a novice. Wikipedia is as much an education tool as it is a scientific treatise. Shoefly (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Shoefly, I probably should have mentioned that I realised I was reverting a good faith edit. Nevertheless, to the best of my knowledge, the edit introduced a factually incorrect statement. I support improved wording, but let's make sure we keep the text factually correct. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Editing[edit]

I did not edit that Religious Friends thing. I think you mistook me for someone else —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.220.101 (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I placed the message on the talk page for your IP address. If you use a shared IP address, then everybody who uses that address will see the talk page. If you create an account and log in, this will not happen anymore. Cheers! Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Mmeijeri. You have new messages at Commercial Crew Development's talk page.
Message added 14:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Glad to help. N2e (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Citations[edit]

Hi Mmeijeri. I'm glad you are helping to improve many articles, especially the ones I've seen you working on in the NewSpace-related area. Per discussion on the CCDev Talk page, I will be glad to help assist you with getting your hands around the Wikipedia world of citations, or more particularly, using {{full}} citations rather than merely bare URLs.

First off, no one has the franchise for the correct way to handle this; so what I say here is what I do, or what I have found helpful over the years. The policy part of things are pretty much explained here, here, and here.

As to what is required for a full citation, for me it is the normal title, media, publisher, etc., but I really want to see BOTH a date of the material at the source AND a date that the particular Wikipedia editor looked at (accessed, or retrieved) the source information. If a URL exists, then of course that should be included; it won't always be if, say, you have some great hardcopy reference book in front of you that you are using to gather date from for a Wikipedia article you are writing.

As to citation format, Wikipedia accepts many (too many, in my opinion, but that is a "whole 'nuther discussion") formats. My personal pilgrimage went like this.

  • I originally tried to get "good" at using the Template:Cite xyz ... citation templates. I added citations in that format for many months, or a year or more. I eventually got tired of doing the extra work to use those templates since every time a meta discussion/debate would occur amongst citation-interested Wikifolk to try to standardize on just a few good data formats, they never resolved to anything concrete. So I quit trying (for a while).
  • For most of the past year or two, I generally did my full citations looking like this
    • <ref>[http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?contentBlockId=a7228862-97ce-4bc4-801b-04b18a772aed Aero-TV: Rocket Racing League -- Diamandis Plans 2010 Exhibition Racing], ''Aero-News Network'', 2010-02-15, retrieved 2010-02-15.</ref>, or this
    • <ref name=ept20101023>[http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_16411102 New era draws closer: Spaceport dedicates runway on New Mexico ranch] ''[[El Paso Times]]'', 2010-10-23, accessed 2010-10-25. ''"two-thirds of the $212 million required to build the spaceport came from the state of New Mexico... The rest came from construction bonds backed by a tax approved by voters in Doña Ana and Sierra counties.''"</ref>,
merely because I could type these sorts of citations up more quickly than the complicated cite templates and move on. This is perfectly acceptable as a format, and it is a full citation.
  • In recent weeks, I have begun to once again use the {{cite}} template again for many of my citations. Why the change? I've discovered a set of Reftools that make it easier to do so than the old manual approach to filling out the cite template fields. (I can tell you more about this if you are interested).

In short, do whatever format you find convenient such that it facilitates you citing more of your new additions to Wikipedia, rather than less.

I have some advice to offer on using refnames, but that can wait for now. In the meantime, let me know what else you might like any assistance on with respect to adding citations. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

reliable sources, self-published research[edit]

Hi, Mmeijeri:

I notice that you undid an edit I offered to Wikipedia on the Kalman Filter (KF), arguing that it is “not supported by reliable sources, looks like original self-published research”.

This being my first attempt at contributing to Wikipedia, I followed up on your reason. Searching thru the rules, I read about “verifiable sources”, “third-party sources”, “original research”, “primary sources”, “secondary sources”, “grey literature”, “documents”, “papers”, and “technical reports”. Although the reference I cited has not been published as a primary source in its current form, it incorporates an accumulation of work started in the mid 80s. It includes work reported in several internal radar house technical memos; the successful test on an undisclosed DoD program 25 years ago; several proposals to DOD; two NAVY contracts over a decade ago wherein it outperformed an extended KF against cruise missile scenarios; and the application, test, and evaluation by a major US aerospace company. This documentation fits into the “grey literature” category and is not readily available.

The Wikipedia article entitled: “Articles without third-party sources” suggests that “An article without third-party sources should not always be deleted.” Perhaps the spirit of this article has application to my edit.

The thrust of the citation is that Kalman actually made some major mistakes that have gone unnoticed. The most serious can best be explained as follows: Consider two vectors A and B. In effect, Kalman claims to use the orthogonality principle to project A onto B. In reality, he projects B onto A. This is extremely subtle, but has enormous consequences.

Close to two dozen experienced individuals (many with PhDs) have reviewed the concepts. They are from the fields of engineering, mathematics, and physics – including “Kalmanists”. None have found errors. All open minded ones agree with the concept, one of whom is John Barnett a former Associate IEEE AES editor who himself has published many papers. He is very familiar with it and was involved with the two NAVY contracts. I didn’t just fall off a turnip truck myself. Although retired for several years, I have a PhD in EE and over 30 years experience in radar, signal process, simulations, and tracking.

Many “Kalmanists” have become really upset over this issue. That is understandable because they themselves missed Kalman’s errors and have even perpetuated them. This problem is well documented in Thomas Kuhn’s book entitled: “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, wherein he describes how fiercely the old guard defends and protects its old theories. Kuhn talks about how difficult it is to make what he calls a “paradigm shift”. He cites numerous examples throughout scientific history.

I notice that you allow numerous statements to remain in the contributions on the KF where citations are needed and requested. At least everything I’ve included in my edit can be verified in the citation I offer.

I encourage you to read the citation or have someone of your choosing read it. It is extremely simple and based on sophomore math. The simplicity seems to put many off . It appears that some specialize in “complication theory” and get upset when things are made simple enough that the “unanointed” can actually understand.

I appreciate your inputs and look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks.

--Hikenstuff (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hikenstuff! You may well be right, and if you are your point would be a valuable contribution, provided we can find a reference. I don't know enough about Kalman filters and I haven't read your contribution closely enough to have an opinion myself. I reverted your change merely because it looked like OR, not because it looked wrong. I am a maths major however and intend to read up on Kalman filters and I'd be willing to invest some time. If you are correct, it would be worthwhile to try and find references in the literature. Surely others active in the field would have noticed? Short of that your contribution would be original research (WP:OR), which is against Wikipedia policy.
Just to be clear, I claim absolutely no authority on the subject of Kalman filters. IIRC I merely reverted your edit because it showed up on my watched pages and it looked like original research. There may be more problems with the page, but as I said I don't consider myself qualified to address them. Your suggestion to invite another opinion is a good one. There are dedicated forums for this on WP, but I'm not familiar with the details. We should probably have a look around. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, Mmeijeri. I do appreciate it.
To the best of my knowledge, no one has addressed the issues I bring up. The main reason is that it goes against current Kalman orthodoxy. Too many people have a vested interest in keeping the current theory. For "Kalmanists" to now acknowledge after 50 years that Kalman actually made some serious blunders - which no one else has openly acknowledged, or even discovered - means that they must fess up to not catching those blunders. Furthermore, my approach is vastly simpler than Kalman theory. It includes only sophomore math. That does not sit well with some who consider themselves among the "anointed".
I have submitted several manuscripts to leading publications. They refuse to touch it because it would alienate too many Kalmanists. Furthermore, it is Kalmanists who do the refereeing and reviewing. I've had vitriolic responses and been treated with less respect than I would never have expected from professionals.
As for primary references, none directly applicable are readily available for a variety reasons: security, previous proprietary issues, internal memos not available to the public, etc.
If you intend to inform yourself with the Kalman and the issues at hand, I suggest you start with my paper. It will give you background on the Kalman Filter and point out some of the failings. I give 6 examples, some of which are mind-blowing.
Let me point out two points of major concern: (1) As I mentioned in my previous note to you, Kalman, in effect, claims to project vector A onto vector B. In reality, he actually projects vector B onto vector A. (2) I actually show that the Kalman Filter is optimum only in the absence of the specific measurement noise it is explicitly designed to filter out. Those are not inconsequential issues.
I'm not familiar with the discusion group "WP". What and where is it?
Hikenstuff (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have more to say on Talk:Nitrogen cycle?[edit]

Do you have more to say on Talk:Nitrogen cycle? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

See wp:tea and Talk:Individual and political action on climate change· 166.252.210.154 (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Diagram for True anomaly[edit]

You replaced the diagram with one from Eccentric anomaly because the latter was "better looking". How about doing the rest of the job, and changing the math that references nu (which was the key variable in the old diagram) to the same math using theta? It's pretty confusing when the math in the text doesn't match the symbols in the diagram. Evaluist (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Turbofan[edit]

Hello Mmeijeri. On 17 April you reverted an unexplained change to Turbofan - see diff. The unexplained change is now the subject of a new thread on the Talk page - see Talk:Turbofan#Relative weight of two-spool and three-spool engines. You may wish to participate in the debate. Dolphin (t) 23:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus revisions[edit]

I removed that section because it was not supported by the sources cited, and said so in my edit explanation. You then undid my edit, saying: "Are you disputing the quote is legitimate???" I am not necessarily disputing the legitimacy of the quote, but I am disputing that the quote is derived from any of the sources that were cited. So, while you may be correct, and the quote may be legitimate, your sources do not support your addition. Your addition/edit should be removed until evidential sources are cited. Mes (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


Are you going to provide a source that substantiates the statement? I have waited a little over a month now. If you are unable or unwilling to do this, please correct your oversight, and revert the page to my edit.

Thanks Mes (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

See my question on the Talk page. I don't understand what you're saying. Martijn Meijering (talk) 04:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

→Here is what I am saying. You provided a source that does not substantiate the quote you added to the article. I removed the quote you added to the article. You then removed my edit (thus re-adding your quote), saying, essentially, "Is the quote not accurate?" I then said, and still say, that the quote may or may not be accurate, but it is not substantiated by the source provided. Therefore, you need to remove the quote (revert to my edit), as I did, or find a source that substantiates your addition. I cannot be any more clear. If you are unwilling to revert to my edit, I will take the time to go back, again, and fix your mistake. Mes (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't like your hostile tone and I still don't understand your objection. I believe I took the quote verbatim from the source mentioned. Are you saying the quote may be true but not taken from the source or that the quote is from the source, but that the source does not substantiate the claim made? Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Bias against Christians[edit]

Martin, please don't be biased against believers. The fact that you added a cn tag when a non-believer editor lacked a source, but you remove mine shows your bias. Come on and be fair please. WalkerThrough (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not biased against believers, I merely try to counter bias, in any direction. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Please do not make false accusations. Where did he add a cn tag to a comment by a non-believer? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I think he means you :-). I'm not offended. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

lot of work deleted[edit]

I hope you know how much information and how many references you just deleted.

Look at how badly written and badly referenced the miracle section and the resurrection section are without my additions.

The information on the divinity of Jesus completely lacks the time dimension I added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spread knowledge not ignorance (talkcontribs) 00:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The changes can always be resurrected from the archives. I'm not saying your changes couldn't make a valuable contribution, just pointing out you're not following proper procedures. If anyone could make controversial changes without achieving consensus first, then Wikipedia couldn't work. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

2-may-toe 2-maw-toe[edit]

Thank you for your comments on the use of "motor" versus "engine". You are of course correct although it is a matter of convention, not a hard, fast rule. The same applies to "electric motors" vs "jet engines" and (guided) missiles vs. (unguided) rockets. The conventions break down when discussing mixed groups (missiles and rockets) when there is no desire to itemize. My first job out of high school was designing rocket kits and motors at Estes Industries in Penrose, CO, in 1965. Vern insisted on labeling his black powder rocket motors "engines", predicting that would lead to the next generation of rocketeers calling them all "engines" whether liquid or solid. It didn't happen. Technically unguided rockets are still missiles and rocket-powered guided missiles are still rockets, but there is a certain utility to assuming "rocket" means unguided and "missile" means guided when loading ordnance on a fighter jet. It economizes on the number on words needed. There is a reason for mixing up motor and engine in long written or verbal discussions. After saying "motor" half a dozen times, the repetition becomes tedious. An occasional use of "engine" instead of "motor" breaks the monotony and spares the speaker from becoming a bore. It is good to recognize the significance of using specific words when making a distinction is important to the context, but even professional engineers take liberties with it when it doesn't particularly matter. I write books and magazine articles on rocketry and find that avoiding too much repetition is something I have to watch closely. Magneticlifeform (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Seminar[edit]

Good morning, Martijn. I just asked Esoglou this question: is the Jesus Seminar considered mainstream or is it fringe? and what about indvidual members of the JS, like Crossan? --Kenatipo speak! 13:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is fringe, but as far as I can tell it isn't the mainstream in the US. In Europe I believe it is among non-denominational scholars, but I'm not at all an expert. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! --Kenatipo speak! 14:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Aquaponics spamming[edit]

Hi Excirial, now that your protection has expired, our spammer at Aquaponics is at it again. Could you enable protection and / or escalate this through appropriate channels? Thanks! Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Whew, talk about persistent spammers and sockpuppeteers. Thanks for the note - i replaced the protection and set it to 1 month this time. Hopefully thats enough to cause them to lose interest. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 10:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"Innovative"[edit]

The rationale behind your revert of my edit was innovative. But that's just my opinion. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"Low Earth Orbit"[edit]

Thanks for the undo. I recognized my error immediately but the undo button didn't work for me on my own edit. Perhaps you were there clicking undo already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.192.31 (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Your edit replacing "1-D" in a section header of the "Rocket engine nozzle" article[edit]

I assume that the wording of "1-D, 2-D and 3-D" means "1-dimensional, 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional". Why must I assume that? Because there was no explanation of what was meant by "1-D". The place to make that explanation is in the text of the section rather than in the header. Many readers will not know what is meant by the header of "1-D Analysis of gas flow in rocket engine nozzles". It is my opinion that the "1-D" should be removed from the section header. Then the first sentence in that section should be devoted to an explanation of what is meant by "1-D" and that there are also 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional analyses.

If you feel so strongly that the analysis be labeled as one-dimensional, then please explain what is meant by "1-D, 2-D and 3-D" ... and do so in the text of that section rather than simply placing the cryptic "1-D" in the section header. Regards, mbeychok (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

A 1-D analysis is one that models a nozzle with only one spatial dimension. In effect, it acts as if the fluid and flow parameters only vary along the length axis of the nozzle, not perpendicular to it. There also exists two dimensional (http://www.sierraengineering.com/TDK/tdk.html) and three dimensional analysis packages. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion[edit]

I am sorry to have to suggest this, but perhaps a reading of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT may be in order, to avoid repetitive debate. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I am offended by your suggestion and your general behaviour and snooty tone in this discussion. It seems as if you are deliberately not answering my arguments. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I have really made best efforts and answered them several times, as have other editors, and per WP:AGF please do not say that. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Second WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT note[edit]

I am sorry, but after all that you are still saying the same things, getting explanations from multiple users, then saying similar things. I am sorry but WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT was designed to stop exactly this type of "talk you to death" syndrome against multiple users. You need to respect WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, because it is a serious issue and can have consequences. History2007 (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not at all saying the same things, I suggested new wordings that again didn't meet the approval of the other editors. And again, while I have tried to first identify and then accommodate concerns about my proposed changes in wording, no one showed any willingness to accommodate my own concerns, or to find new wordings that everyone can agree on. Seemingly they were more concerned with proving me wrong than finding a consensus. I do note that some editors are more constructive than others, and I appreciate that.
Note that unlike some I didn't take it upon myself to unilaterally go on a quest to edit a hard-won consensus text and replace it with my own opinion. It doesn't seem likely that I will convince the editors on the Jesus page, so I haven't made any edits to the main page yet, and I think I'll concentrate my efforts elsewhere. To the degree constructive editors make further points on the Jesus page I'll be happy to engage them.
I'll also take the more general and fundamental questions about using reliable sources from neighbouring fields and about not misrepresenting the breadth of an academic consensus (neither too wide nor too narrow) to a more appropriate WP policy discussion page, since it isn't specific to the Jesus page, or even pages touching on HJ research. I'll need to find such a page first, so it may be a while before you hear from me again.
Another point. I can't help it if some other editors go on anti-religious rants, take it up with them, not me. You appear to me to be trying to shut down or even shout down legitimate debate. I submit this is not a constructive attitude, and invite you to reflect on this.
And if you are not interested in my opinion, you could always try not to post on my talk page.
None so blind as those that will not see. Martijn Meijering (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
You are right that you "suggested new wordings that again didn't meet the approval of the other editors." You are doing that again and again. You keep suggesting minor variations on a theme, and as you said they are not getting very far. Please do take a hint, we are all going of die of old age on this, or you will breach WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by a really wide margin. Please respect that in Wikipedia cyclic debate against multiple other editors is not allowed to be "never ending" , and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is the vehicle that ends it. You need to accept that. History2007 (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
What do you want me to do if you post on my talk page? If you don't want a response, don't post on my talk page. Note that I haven't posted on the Jesus page and I have already stated I'll take my concerns elsewhere. You don't get to unilaterally declare a discussion over though, and you've just as persistently disagreed with me as I have with you. And unlike you I have made efforts to identify and accommodate your concerns. I am a long term WP editor in good standing, and I resent your snooty lectures, misrepresentation of my points, wiki-lawyering and thinly-veiled threats. I may take this to some dispute resolution procedure, as it would be nice to have closure without relying on one side declaring victory unilaterally (as if that is what we should aim for, instead of consensus), but for now I see other more productive avenues. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree that you have started to avoid repeating the same items on that talk page. That is good. And I really do not want to discuss this any more than necessary here. My point was that your views on the topic were "quite lonely", and the discussion was not in "any way" a two-party discussion. It was by and large a wide ranging "multi-party discussion" and as you saw your views did not receive support from other editors. That was my point. And I did not declare closure by myself - the term "grasping at straws" was not mine. Other people also said that and I asked for an uninvolved editor to address that after the RSN assessment. The way I see it, you are the only person still arguing there. That means your views have received n support after all of this long discussion. That was my point. If you debate for so long and you are still the only one opposing a number of other editors, then you must accept that you have a "lonely position" which is not getting any support. That was my point about not prolonging it. You can say the same things for 3 more weeks with no major difference to anything. That is my point. History2007 (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Fine, it is obvious I'm not getting any support, the short-lived intervention by some anti-religious ranters doesn't qualify since I disagree with them too. I'd appreciate it if you could at least affirm you are not lumping me with them.
Still, it seems to me that I'm not even getting a cooperative reception. For instance I agreed with a concern about one proposed change and asked if people could agree that my concern in the other direction was also justified. That would have been a perfect opportunity for someone to say "Sure Martijn, we mustn't overstate the consensus either, but what is it that makes you think we are doing that, I don't see it?". And then we could have had a productive discussion, perhaps finding a formulation that satisfies everybody's concerns, even if one side feels it wasn't really necessary. Or we could come to a collective decision that we had tried and failed to find a consensus. But you have to try first, and I don't think that happened.
Just to make this clear, I'm not saying people didn't put in any effort, they clearly did, just that the efforts appeared to have been aimed more at convincing the other party or "winning" the debate, rather than understanding the other party and seeking an accommodation. I'll take my share of responsibility for that, but no more than that.
And I did in fact make proposals that to the best of my knowledge did not receive any response. One is the suggestion to change the wording to "Very few scholars dispute...". I can see how it might not seem necessary to you, but if it alleviates my concerns and doesn't cause any new troubles for you, why not? It is certainly well supported by the sources. If necessary, we could even say "very few scholars of antiquity dispute...". This is not a minor variant of my earlier proposals, which involved saying "biblical scholars".
Yet another proposal I've seen no reaction to is to simply use Grant's formulation. Again, this is not a minor variation. Perhaps we could add Ehrman's statement as an attributed quote if you feel the fact he goes further than Grant deserves more attention.
If the answers are simply "we like the wording as it is, and we are in the majority so please go away" then I'd find that disappointing, but I no longer want to invest any energy in this if I don't get more cooperation. I bet you would find it disappointing too if the same thing happened to you on another page, where the other side was in the majority.
Here's another angle that may or not help. If we agree that scholars from one field may be used as authorities on neighbouring fields, at least when discussing the same topic, then I agree the onus would be on me to show (with sources!) that the formulation quoted from Ehrman is potentially misleading. I could do that by trying to show he didn't in fact mean to imply that many scholars outside historical-critical NT scholarship had studied the matter (I don't know, maybe he did, maybe he didn't ). Or I could try to find another reliable source that contradicts the claim. I believe I have touched on some of those points, but I could try to elaborate at some point.
Of course, I don't agree on that policy issue, but continued discussion between the two of us on that topic doesn't appear fruitful, so I'll try to find a better forum for that first. I hope that at least you will be able to see that I accept some of your logic, though not all of your premises. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heavy lift launch vehicle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ULA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Block quoting[edit]

The edit you just reverted was correct the way it was. Every block in the quote gets a leading double quote. The first and third already have them; the second paragraph needs one, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.1.233 (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I thought it was a stray quote. Note that the end quote was in the wrong place, but that has now been fixed by another editor. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Root finder[edit]

I am tryong to understand why this is a spam. I have paid attention to every one of their messages and altered my content accordingly - out of curiosity have you read the content of my edits? If so, can you please explain why it is a spam, I would be glad to fix it. The material I have posted there is absolutely in line with the other contributions in that section, as well as Wiki's charter as a whole. Does multiple edits automatically qualify as a spam? Thanks. Lakshmi Krishnamurthy (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakshmi7977 (talkcontribs)

Cnut the Great[edit]

I'm not about to join an edit war - and I much prefer the "-ise" spelling myself anyway. But if you check WP:ENGVAR and WP:IZE you'll see that -ize IS an acceptable British ending - and in majority use in that article. All I did was revert a drive-by edit which introduced a redirect!

I'd be interested to see how you work out that Cnut was a "British" king, as well! :-)

-- Ian Dalziel (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I realise your edits were made in good faith, but so were those of the other editor. You are right that we shouldn't change ise vs ize based on personal preference. We can change it for a serious reason though, and it seems to me isn't strange to use British spelling for an article about a king of England. If we do, it should be done consistently throughout the article and without breaking links. So it seems to me that either we revert back to the original version, or to the latest version with the new spelling and change to British spelling throughout. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Propellant depot[edit]

Hey Mmeijeri, looks like you edited the Propellant depot article right after I began a series of edits to attempt to improve the article. I'm done for now, so feel free to look it over and make improvements as well. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Fractional Reserve Banking[edit]

Hello. I see that you've undone a recent edit of mine. Please review WP:BRD.

Rather than undo a revert with which you disagree, it is WP practice to express your concern on the article talk page so that the matter can be discussed and a consensus resolution achieved. Please reverse your "undo" and open a talk thread which explains your concerns so that I and other editors can address them there and the matter can be resolved. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't lecture me on BRD. You made a bold move, I did a (partial) revert, and now we discuss first. I don't have to undo my revert.Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Refutations[edit]

Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Epiphanius, etc must have been refuting something. The belief in an incorporeal Christ dates from the earliest history of Christianity and it matters not whether a non-physical Christ was being worshipped and venerated - a non-physical Christ was a mythical Christ and this was the hub of the argument propounded against the believers by the Early Church Fathers. And this is the very point made in standard reference books about Christianity, that I cited. Dickie birdie (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Boeing crew capsule CCDEV.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Boeing crew capsule CCDEV.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Huntster (t @ c) 05:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The new image is fine. I think the license situation is the same as with the old one, but the newer one looks slightly better. Not that the license situation was ever a problem IMO, as the image was made available "for newsmedia use". Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm Chris Arnesen, a well-intentioned competent editor[edit]

I've been working hard on the Bitcoin article, which is now in pretty good shape. So, I've turned my attention to the Ripple article, which is absolutely awful and would appreciate if you'd let me help you improve it. The article is overly verbose and has redundant text in a bad way. We'll need to remove that redundancy. I'll just add the repetition tag for now and let you think about it a bit. Cheers, Chris Arnesen 17:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, and I see you've been doing some good work. I agree the article still needs a lot of work. I had been merely observing and letting PirateButtercup do most of the work, but now I've been started trying to clarify some misconceptions that were introduced, and that has introduced some additional repetition. For instance, the subsection on trust lines is partially redundant with the concept section. The trust line section should logically precede the gateway section, but it cannot be moved just like that because it is written in terms of gateways rather than the other way round. It needs to be split up, with one part merged with the concept section, and the other with the gateway section. There are many other areas where the article still needs work. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment from PirateButtercup[edit]

Dear Mmeijeri, I feel bad about this but, I feel your understanding of Ripple is 'past it's expiry date'. To claim that Ripple's "credit system still is the basis for Ripple's fiat payment mechanism." is erroneous. Deposits to a gateway is the basis for the fiat payment. The over use of words like 'credit' and 'IOU' to discuss it's founding philosophy are damaging to the presentation of it's actual function. I am daily up to my eyeballs defending Ripple in discussion forum arguments because of you persistence in making these philosophical underpinnings so prominent in the article. In reality, they are applicable to many payment/exchange/remittance systems. Nowhere in the page on the US dollar, for example, does one read that dollars are actually IOUs owed by the government to the federal reserve. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PirateButtercup (talkcontribs) 19:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I moved the above comment from Mmeijeri's user page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd seen it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mmeijeri
en.wikipedia.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2014-10
115691
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:IYYTUKFE34R2ZFBBMDPETTQCYMP3UY65
<urn:uuid:fe006981-741a-4199-8511-93c86bef0d56>
2014-03-08T15:50:55Z
208.80.154.224
sha1:FWL3HQH3R4I5UIIZFZJLY4C3SNKNAXKE
<urn:uuid:c3dba145-a556-4308-bf74-8236c7c06cf0>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mmeijeri
response
<urn:uuid:43657869-15ac-4025-bce2-9a3648028a9c>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-183-142-35.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2014-10
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for March 2014
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf