Hello Hypnosifl, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

• some General guidance.
• Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
• Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
• Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
• Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
• Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
• Use the Show preview button
• Provide an Edit summary
• Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
• Take a look at Consensus of standards
• Create a User page

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing! --Alf ^melmac 12:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! You recently added an external link to an internet forum in an article. It has been removed because the link pointed to a non-encyclopedic source. Please refer to Wikipedia's policy on external links for more information. --Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 23:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue spamming you will be blocked from editing. Hypnosifl 08:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, sorry i forgot to read your 600,000 rules! i think sites should be classed by importance. my suggestion of course, but won't be followed i guess.--Petrovic-Njegos 17:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, alternatehistory.com clearly has more members than alternia.com anyway. Also, even if you wanted to move alternia.com to the top, that was no reason to delete Alison Bridge's site from the list. Hypnosifl 01:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well anyways AH.com can be first, be Alternia is second. we're the second most powerful board not by number of members but by the constant activity. as for alison bridge id really like to know how many members they even have. and i doubt alison bridge can be considered alternate history even.--Petrovic-Njegos 14:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good edits to process physics today, thanks. Feel free to summon me on my talk page if someone disputes these or other helpful edits of yours and I'll be happy to assist (provided you are on the side of NPOV of course). — coelacan talk — 05:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If you remove external links (which I have restored), please at least give an explanation. MadMaxDog 06:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a different poster who removed that link, not me--see your talk page for more discussion. Hypnosifl 07:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hypnosifl, I wasn't aware of the policy of capitalizing. I will use this in the future.

You know what? I don't have any definitive sources. Those Net reports are all I have. It must have stuck in my brain and lodged there as something more confirmable. *shakes my head* Feel free to alter it to something like "According to Internet reports, there were plans..." or whatever. Thanos6 00:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you noticed, but we're considering changing the article title back to "Alternate history (fiction)" -- if you want to argue against this change, please post your thoughts at Talk:Alternate history fiction#(fiction) Hypnosifl 15:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, I'll respond there : ) - jc37 20:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, your kickin' Mnemopis's butt in the deletion debate. Way to make your case. Brentt 05:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did a blanket revert, and I was unsure whether or not to revert the presentist stuff. I'm somewhat unfamiliar with especially the recent developments in Presentism, but because there was some removal of content that I thought was good, and it was an anon ip, I decided to revert. I do like your resolution better though :D Thanks for your edit. McKay 06:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my contribution as 'original research' however it is not research, just points out a fairly obvious logical flaw in the original argument that shows the whole thing as absurd. -- 74.98.142.235 01:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This, however presumes only humans could have built one (ie: there is no such thing of extraterrestrial origin).

I disagree that your argument shows there is a "logical flaw" in using the fact that a time machine couldn't take you back further than the date it was created as a possible answer to the question of why we see no time travelers--as long as it's reasonably plausible that there might not be any intelligent alien civilizations in our past light cone, then that is enough to establish it as a possible explanation. Do you think we can say with a high level of confidence that there must be intelligent alien civilizations with advanced levels of technology in our past light cone? What about the Fermi paradox?

Also, please look at Wikipedia's policy on original research--"original research" covers any original arguments not found in published sources, not just "research" in the usual sense of the word. Even an editor's own synthesis of arguments published in different sources is excluded under the policy. Hypnosifl 09:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the fermi paradox, who are the witnesses in this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsLj2ScRkFo&NR -- 74.98.142.235 04:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, if any UFO ever turns out to be an alien spacecraft, then it is no longer plausible that there are no alien civilizations in our past light cone. Further, if time travel into the past can exist, then the arecibo message, which will arrive at Messier 13 in 25,000 years, could already have been acted upon by an advanced civilization there, assuming they can send a message far enough into their past, say on the order or 50,000..100,000 years, to notify their ancestors to come out here and check on us. If this stuff seems too absurd to consider, then what we need is low-cost equipment to perform observations of purported UFO sightings, such as a moving gravitational wave anomaly, to test claims made by Bob Lazar and friends. I favour turning pseudo-science into real science through education and accessibility -- 74.98.142.235 06:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you removed:

"Within fiction the possibility of time travel has been conceived without violating the view of presentism. For example, an instance of time travel occurred inside a "presentist" framework in the 1999 film Galaxy Quest, wherein a device called the "Omega 13", which was thought to be an explosive weapon having enough power to annihilate the universe, in fact only rearranged every molecule in the universe to their position thirteen seconds prior (except seemingly for the individual activating it). Thus keeping future and past both within the arrangement of the condition of the present, and so never actually transversing "through" time."

You say "this section is for real philosophy" Two points on that, anything posited is "real philosophy, is it not? Real philosophy can be science fiction, it is anywhere to the level of 'real science' anywhere in this article, second point; then why does the article mention things like "Doctor Who"? You also say "--I doubt there are any philosophers (or scientists) who would say that rearranging the universe even qualifies as "time travel"" isn't doubting what scientists would or wouldn't think the definition of non-NPOV article editing? Putting everything the way it was previously is "altering time". The case is, the fiction work presented considered it time-travel, and it would fall within the scheme of presentist view-points about the limitations of the universe and space time. Thanks. 67.5.156.130 18:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By "real philosophy" I meant philosophical ideas discussed by professional academic scholars, and by "this section" I meant only the section on presentism, I wouldn't have a problem if you added something about Galaxy Quest to sections after 6.2, which discuss time travel in fiction as well as physics/philosophy (I'll change the section heading to make that more clear). Doubting whether any published academic sources on time travel (whether in philosophy or physics) would consider rearranging all the matter in the universe to be a valid form of time travel isn't a violation of NPOV, because the burden of proof is on the editor who adds some information to verify that there are reliable sources for the edit (of course I am not challenging your description of what happened in the movie, I'm just saying that in order to fit in that section, there should be some evidence that professional philosophers or physicists would consider this a form of time travel). I disagree that rearranging all the matter in the universe is "altering time", it's just moving matter around in a way that does not violate causality in the physics sense, nor does it match the ideas of presentists who consider the possibility of time travel. Hypnosifl 18:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if this is the proper place for this, because I find the rules and structure of Wikipedia impossibly complex and incomprehensible. However, no doubt you will correct me if it's wrong. You reverted an edit I made to the Time Travel article, about the clock paradox. Your explanation is, I believe, fallacious and suggests to me that you have an incomplete understanding of relativity. My corrections to the article are drawn from the basic tenets of Special Relativity - in particular the equivalence of all inertial frames. Could you please explain what right you have to remove my corrections to this article? You have cited no evidence to support your contentions.

Ed Addis (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Ed Addis[reply]

I have no idea. When I created the page I only moved the list over from where it was previously at Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction. I didn't add anything new to it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of blowing ALL my stuff away, how about helping me by using your creativity to edit my materials in some way that makes you happy, and still gets the message across about where civilian remote viewing ended-up. How would you do it? Show me the correct way.Kazuba 22:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Thanks. I'll reorganize, collect more data, and soon give it another shot. If you don't like it how about helping me.Kazuba 23:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy your talk page... New to editing.. Not sure how I'm actually supposed to do this but just wanted to say that :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbylleeich (talk • contribs) 15:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, recently the Kardashev scale entry has gone through some major reverts, I'd like to talk about the reinstatement of the material. I've looked around and have seen that you've made some major contributions to the article and are interested in it's progress. I feel we need to talk about the reverts and reinstatement and talk about whether either are justified. Talk:Kardashev scale If you could help or add your two cents I'd really appreciate it. Thanks--Sparkygravity (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the references to the article, not in your edit summary. Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding those references, and for the other good work you have done on this article. I apologize if I got testy, I suppose it is the price for being overly-vigilant. I know now that you had no ill intent. If I can every be of assistance, please just ask. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a planning page to arrange a meetup in Providence. Please sign up if you are interested. --mikeu (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first two meetups in Providence are now scheduled. --mikeu ^talk 13:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Any further thoughts about the "retrocausal" double-slit experiments?

I found at some point that the discussion of "a photon" going this way or that way was messing my thought patterns up. What is important are total number of places where a photon (and its entangled counterpart) can show up and whether or not self-interference can occur at each. At first it seems that one could make something patterned on a truth table as used in formal logic. One could say, e.g., "The signal photons all show up at detector 0. The idler photons show up at detector 1, detector 2, detector 3, or detector 4." Then one would tabulate whether the photon that gets detected at d-0 shows up as part of an interference pattern, or whether it shows up as part of a non-interference "spot." But it isn't as simple as that if the experimental apparatus also does something different to the photons that show up at d-1 or d-2. In the Kim experiment, the physical apparatus results in a phase difference between the two sets of photons (i.e., any that end up at d-1 vs. any that end up at d-2).

It all sounds sort of intuitively o.k. to me until I try to deal with the time differences. We could put a camera with a timed shutter that would open and shut for the signal photon, and the spot would be made on some photographic film before anything showed up at any of the detectors for the idler photon. As far as I know, nobody is saying that the photographic emulsion that had been exposed at one time could get unexposed and then re-exposed to match the results given by the idler photon. So it seems as though it's a question of possible outcomes "outside of time." Weird.

I wonder why nobody has done that experiment and added an extra mirror that would put the two idler photons going into d-1 and d-2 in phase with each other. P0M (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to that your comment, I did not mean to blame you of WP:STALK, but it is generally a good idea to be mutually forthcoming. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will defer to your opinion on the matter. My main point is that, unlike "War Of The Worlds" or "Independence Day," "Signs" does not show an alien invasion. At most, there are mysterious indications, and then---perhaps---one alien. It simply does not seem the same. But, do what you like. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. You convinced me. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While your correct that none of the items on the list are cited (except for one) the majority of them already have articles on Wikipedia, or at least the author does. I apoligize though if its Wiki policy to allow a more liberal take on nobility on the lists. My problem is that a red link or simply unsourced text gives no one the chance to see whether this item is notable or not. For example someone who self-publishes a post-apoc novel that only is sold in a handful of book stores might try to get some free advertisement on Wikipedia by listing on said article, even though is novel wouldn't stand up to WP:BK. Also citing items on list isn't unheard of on some articles (see List of banned books, List of unrecognized countries, and List of zombie films). Still I'm willing to allow the revert though I still feel sourcing items that do not have Wiki articles would imporve the lists. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also just to point out the guideline you cited to requires inline citations and not hidden text. I'm going to check those hidden sources and properly cite them when I get the chance. Those cites that aren't credible though will get a citation needed. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a significant contributor to this article, you may wish to comment here. Cardamon (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BruceGrubb has re-introduced his/her changes in the time travel article, despite lack of agreement by anyone else involved. --antiXt (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I will attempt to resolve this. Rich Farmbrough, 03:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I see you have been adding some good quality material to the white hole article. The current text a lot better informed that the tripe that was there in the past. It would be awesome if you could also reference some of those additions. This should help the article for becoming eroded by well-intended edits by users having watched too many SF movies.

I also noticed that you added some inline external links. For various reasons as explained at WP:EL, external links should not appear in the body of the text. It would be better to use ref tags to place them with the references. The {{cite web}} template can also be useful in that context to provide addition meta data about the link.

Thanks. TimothyRias (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It comes from the fact that the author has heretofore not responded to my posting on his talk page. MSJapan (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the issue should really be discussed on the talk page for the article itself if you feel strongly that the lists should be removed, so that any editor can contribute to the discussion and hopefully some consensus can be reached. By the way, note that Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Bulleted_and_numbered_lists doesn't say there's anything wrong in general with bulleted lists, and offers guidelines for their use. Hypnosifl (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your question on my talk page. Sorry to take so long, I don't get on WP very often. linas (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an open WP:SPI case looking at sockpuppet editing primarily on the Johann Hari/ Talk page. As you edited the Johann Hari/Talk page between 2004 and 2011, your input is welcomed. Yonmei (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please join us at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology#Geological_time_period_capitalization where I mentioned one of your reverts. Dicklyon (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	New England Wikimedia General Meeting
	The New England Wikimedia General Meeting will be a large-scale meetup of all Wikimedians (and friends) from the New England area in order to discuss regional coordination and possible formalization of our community (i.e., a chapter). Come hang out with other Wikimedians, learn more about ongoing activities, and help plan for the future! Potential topics: What is a Wikimedia chapter and should we work towards one? Planning of regular Boston meetups (any other New England cities?) Planning for upcoming coordinated events (Wikipedia Love Libraries, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiknic, etc.) Outreach to universities (WikiProject Academical Village) and cultural institutions (GLAM) Wikimania DC is this summer. Your ideas!
	Sunday, April 22 1:30 PM – 4:30 PM	Conference Room C06, Johnson Building, Boston Public Library—Central Library 700 Boylston St., Boston MA 02116
Please sign up here: Wikipedia:Meetup/New England!

---

Message delivered by Dominic at 08:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.[reply]

Hi. We seem to have a common interest in the philosophy of time. My interest dates to childhood when I first encountered the works of John William Dunne and later Parmedies and Zeno. I was wondering if when you might have a few minutes if you would be able to answer a question I posed on the talk page of the Wiki Eternalism article. It’s the recent addition entitled “Eternalism and idealism.” Thanks much and I appreciated your comments there regarding Quentin Smith and presentism.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to the Oxford paper by Michael Rea. I read it last evening and found it very interesting. However, I think you are misunderstanding what he is writing about eternalism and the A-series of time. I clarified the point beneath your comment regarding Quentin Smith on the Eternalism Talk page. Thanks again.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Eternalism (philosophy of time) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 21:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how what I am doing constitutes edit warring, all but one of my edits have introduced changes beyond simple reversion, and I've responded to your comments in the edit notes, giving rationales. I would be happy to have a more detailed discussion on the talk page. Hypnosifl (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you invariably insist on removing material in order to accommodate your newest additions. Your new additions aren't the problem, it's the cited material you insist on removing. Your edit summaries are misleading in regard to Carroll, whom you, yourself, originally added in support of the statement that eternalism ‘is sometimes referred to as the "block time" or "block universe" theory’. Realizing that this implies it's not always referred to as such, you then claim your cite was "not good" because "it" merely referred to a "general idea of a lack of flow". "It" refers to a Kurt Vonnegut example, and Carroll does go on to specify eternalism.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 22:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the full quote which indicates both that "Opinions differ, of course." and that "this lofty timeless Tralfamadorian perch" or "block universe" viewpoint he's been describing is known as "eternalism" ("which holds that past, present, and future are all equally real"):

In the philosophic literature, this is sometimes called the "block time" or "block universe" perspective, thinking of all space and time as a single existing block of spacetime. For our present purposes, the important point is that we can think about time in this way. Rather than carrying a picture in the back of our minds in which times is a substance that flows around us or through which we move, we can think of an ordered sequence of correlated events, together constituting the entire universe. Time is then something we reconstruct from the correlations in these events. "This ice cube melted over the course of ten minutes" is equivalent to "the clock reads ten minutes later when the ice cube has melted than it does when the ice cube is put into the glass." We're not committing ourselves to some dramatic conceptual stance to the effect that it's wrong to think of ourselves as embedded within time; it just turns out to be more useful, when we get around to asking why time and the universe are the way they are, to be able to step outside and view the whole ball of wax from the perspective of nowhen.

Opinions differ, of course. The struggle to understand time is a puzzle of long standing, and what is "real" and what is "useful" have been very much up for debate. One of the most influential thinkers on the nature of time was St. Augustine, the fifth-century North African theologian and Father of the Church. Augustine is perhaps best known for developing the doctrine of original sin, but he was interdisciplenary enough to occasionally turn his head to metaphysical issues. In Book XI of his Confessions, he discusses the nature of time.

What is by now evident and clear is that neither future nor past exists, and it is inexact language to speak of three times--past, present, and future. Perhaps it would be exact to say: there are three times, a present of things past, a present of things present, a present of things to come. In the soul there are these three aspects of time, and I do not see them any where else. The present considering the past is memory, the present considering the present is immediate awaremess, the present considering the future is expectation.

Augustine doesn't like this block-universe business. He is what is known as a "presentist," someone who thinks that only the present moment is real--the past and future are things that we here in hte present simply try to reconstruct, given the data and knowledge available to us. The viewpoint we've been describing, on the other hand, is (sensibly enough) known as "eternalism," which holds that past, present, and future are all equally real.

Concerning the debate between eternalism and presentism, a typical physicist would say: "Who cares?" Perhaps surprisingly, physicists are not overly concerned with adjudicating which particular concepts are "real" or not. They care very much about how the real world works, but to them it's a matter of constructing comprehensive theoretical models and comparing them with empirical data. It's not the individual concepts characteristic of each model ("past," "future," "time") that matter; it's the structure as a whole. Indeed, it often turns out to be the case that one specific model can be described in two completely different ways, using an entirely different set of concepts.

So, as scientists, our goal is to construct a model of reality that successfully accounts for all of these different notions of time--time is measured by clocks, time is a coordinate on spacetime, and our subjective feeling that time flows. The first two are actually very well understood in terms of Einstein's theory of relativity, as we will cover in Part Two of the book. But the third remains a bit mysterious. The reason why I am belaboring the notion of standing outside of time to behold the entire universe as a single entity is because we need to distinguish the notion of time in and of itself from the perception of time as experienced from our parochial view within the present moment. The challenge before us is to reconcile these two perspectives.

— Sean M. Carroll, From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time

—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 23:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Hypnosifl 20:56, 26 July 2012 (rv - Carroll does not use term "eternalism" in section quoted, if he does elsewhere please include in cite. No cite for claim that minkowski diagrams specifically inspire eternalism, I gave cite for idea that mathematics of relativity inspire it)

Please don't give misleading edit summaries, you, yourself, have added two cites that specify Minkowski:

• Dowden, Bradley (2009). The Metaphysics of Time: A Dialogue. New Dialogues in Philosophy. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 149. ISBN 9780742560314. LCCN 2009021319. Block universe theory: Metaphysical theory that implies all of the past, present, and future is real. The name derives from the fact that a Minkowski diagram would represent events as points in a block if space and time were to be finite in all directions. Also called "eternalism."
• Peterson, Daniel; Silberstein, Michael (2009), "Relativity of Simultaneity and Eternalism: In Defense of the Block Universe", in Petkov, Vesselin (ed.), Space, Time, and Spacetime: Physical and Philosophical Implications of Minkowski's Unification of Space and Time, p. 208

—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 01:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peterson and Silberstein flirt with anachronism. One might suspect it's intentional and tongue-in-cheek: Karl Popper having gone so far as to call Einstein "Parmenides", and there being no question that ancient Greek geometry stopped short at 3D solids. To whatever extent a treatment of Heraclitus and Parmenides is well–characterized as a presentist-eternalist debate, "block time" would seem, rather, to emphasize the 20th century novelties that have reinvigorated such debate. That doesn't require Heraclitus and Parmenides to accept or reject Minkowski and Einstein...

As Ladyman et al. wisely note, the following are distinct but frequently conflated, deeply related questions in the metaphysics of time:

1. Are all events, past, present and future, real?
2. Is there temporal passage or objective becoming?
3. Does tensed language have tenseless truth conditions?
4. Does time have a privilaged direction?

This paper will focus almost exclusively on question (1). In the philosophy of time, this major question has captivated philosophers for decades now. This problem stems from two competing notions of time. The first, originally suggested by Heraclitus, is called presentism. Though we will later present the presentist position more clearly so that it can be made relevant to a more thorough and modern treatment of presentist/eternalist debate, a good starting defintion for presentism is the view that only the present is real; both the past and the future are unreal. This view is close to, but not the same as, possibilism, which states that the future is unreal while both the past and the present are real. Both of these stances claim to adequately capture the manifest human perception of time. We tend to view ourselves as occupying a unique temporal frame of that we call the present that always moves away from the past towards an uncertain future.

However, with the advent of relativity, a different stance, whose primary ancient proponent was Parmenides of Elea, provided a viable alternative to Heraclitean presentism. This new stance, eternalism, was translated into the language of relativity by Herman Minkowski in 1908 to suggest that time and space should be united in a single, four-dimensional manifold. Thus arose the notion of a 4D "block universe" (BU) in which the past, present, and future are all equally real. This view is called eternalism, and two arguments by Putnum and Rietdijk allegedly show that special relativity (SR) with its relativity of simultaneity (RoS) implies that only the BU perspective is correct.^[1]

— Peterson and Silberstein, Space, Time, and Spacetime: Physical and Philosophical Implications of Minkowski's Unification of Space and Time, "Relativity of Simultaneity and Eternalism: In Defense of the Block Universe"

—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 09:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summaries are misleading in regard to Carroll, whom you, yourself, originally added in support of the statement that eternalism ‘is sometimes referred to as the "block time" or "block universe" theory’.

No, I added the Carroll reference simply because it was one of the few I could find that mentioned both the terms "block time" and the term "block universe" (most authors use one or the other, and it seems as if most professional philosophers use "block universe", so that term should probably appear first), and since he used the phrase "block time or block universe", I figured that was a good enough demonstration that those two terms are interchangeable (I have since found a cite in which the author defines "block time" to mean only the temporal dimension of the block universe, so I plan to edit the paragraph a bit to indicate that some authors use them interchangeably while some use block time in this more specific way).

Realizing that this implies it's not always referred to as such, you then claim your cite was "not good" because "it" merely referred to a "general idea of a lack of flow". "It" refers to a Kurt Vonnegut example, and Carroll does go on to specify eternalism.

No, I don't "realize" that. What he did was detail the idea of viewing all times as equally real without initially giving it a name (that's what I mean by "the general idea of a lack of flow"--in other words, I was just saying that he was giving a description of the idea rather than a particular term), and then he said that this view is "sometimes called the 'block time' or 'block universe'" perspective. I guess he uses the phrase "sometimes" precisely because the selfsame belief is also "sometimes" called eternalism! Of course I can't be sure that he uses "sometimes" for that reason, but the point is that there is nothing in Carroll's quote that clearly contradicts the idea that "eternalism" and "block universe" are understood by philosophers to refer to the selfsame philosophical theory, what he does not say is that "eternalism is sometimes known as block time". If your reason for being insistent on the "It [eternalism] is sometimes known as block time" edit has to do with your beliefs that at least some professional philosophers would assign the terms somewhat different meanings, you need to find a reference that clearly supports this belief--Carroll's does not, it is consistent with my interpretation.

Thank you for providing the quote showing Carroll does use the word "eternalism", which is what I was asking for in my edit note when I said Carroll does not use term "eternalism" in section quoted, if he does elsewhere please include in cite. (I had not read the entire section of the book you quote, I was just referring to the fact that the word "eternalism" did not appear in the quote provided in the footnote). But the context in which he uses it again does not clearly indicate that he thinks the term has even a potentially different meaning from "block time"--he says The viewpoint we've been describing, on the other hand, is (sensibly enough) known as "eternalism,". If he thought there was any potential difference in meaning between "eternalism" and "block time", why would he straightforwardly say "the viewpoint we've been describing"--which he previously referred to as "the block time or block universe perspective"--just is eternalism? Again I can't be sure that my interpretation of his meaning is correct, but nothing in this quote is a good cite for the idea that it is only sometimes correct to refer to eternalism as the "block universe" perspective, if that is what you are trying to suggest.

Thanks for finding a cite that mentions Minkowski diagrams as an inspiration for the name "block universe"--it's true that it appears in a cite I had added, but I hadn't remembered that they mentioned Minkowski diagrams specifically (I was just googling for sources that equate eternalism with the block universe, that's really the only aspect of the sources I paid attention to). I think that this is distinct from saying the idea behind eternalism or the block universe was inspired by relativity, though--I provided a source, the Peterson/Silberstein paper, saying that Minkowski's mathematical treatment of relativity (along with the relativity of simultaneity) inspires many modern eternalists. (The mathematical treatment is distinct from his diagrams, which are just visualization aids and have no additional physical or mathematical content--it is Minkowski's mathematical treatment, detailed in a 1908 paper, which is being referred to in the Peterson/Silberstein paper when they say "This new stance, eternalism, was translated into the language of relativity by Herman Minkowski in 1908 to suggest that time and space should be united in a single, four-dimensional manifold.") Given this name vs. idea distinction, I think it would be best to first have the sentence mentioning the mathematical treatment and the relativity of simultaneity as a source of inspiration for modern eternalists, then add the idea of the name "block universe" being inspired by Minkowski diagrams in a parenthetical after then name "block universe" is introduced in the paragraph.

If you don't object, I would like to copy and paste this discussion over to the talk page for eternalism, as I think it would be good to put it where more other editors of the article are likely to see it and perhaps weigh in themselves. If you prefer, you can copy and paste your part of the discussion to the talk page so it appears under your name in the edit log, then I can add my response...I'm going away this weekend but if you haven't done that by Monday, and haven't objected to moving the discussion to the talk page, I'll move the whole discussion over there when I get back. Hypnosifl (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to consider making finer distinctions between block time and block universe in the article body. The lede should introduce and summarize what's in the body. Carroll is a good cite, even if you selected it simply because it containd your search terms.

I pointed that out, curious that you wouldn't realize it, and still won't... He introduced the concept with a popular example from fiction. He most certainly did name "this lofty timeless Tralfamadorian perch", sometimes called "block time" or "block universe", and in due course, he went on to say that he had been speaking about eternalism. It's WP:TENDENTIOUS to claim there's nothing in Carroll 'that clearly contradicts the idea that "eternalism" and "block universe" are understood by [ALL] philosophers to refer to the selfsame philosophical theory'. But if 'sometimes' didn't make it clear enough, he belabors the point: 'Opinions differ, of course. The struggle to understand time is a puzzle of long standing, and what is "real" and what is "useful" have been very much up for debate.' Yes, he does say that eternalism is sometimes called "block time" or "block universe"... as opposed to Augustine's presentism: "The viewpoint we've been describing, on the other hand, is (sensibly enough) known as "eternalism," which holds that past, present, and future are all equally real."

The so-called '"It [eternalism] is sometimes known as block time" edit' was preexisting text and your bold subsequent edit has been challenged, see WP:BRD. It's a real pity you can't hold a discussion without making up some nonsense and claiming that's what I believe. I've asked you many times to stop putting words in my mouth. It's perfectly obvious that no philosopher who claims Parmenides for eternalism would seriously claim him for modern "block time" or "block universe". Again, it's merely WP:TENDENTIOUS to repeat ad nauseum that you don't need a cite.

Yes, Carroll would support the statement that "block time" or "block universe" is the modern evolution of classic eternalism. Both are eternalism, but obviously, only the modern version is based on Minkowski and Einstein. What a surprise you WP:TENDENTIOUSLY arrive back at "nothing in this quote is a good cite for the idea that it is only sometimes correct"... You agree he's talking about eternalism, yet you deny ‘this is sometimes called the "block time" or "block universe" perspective’.

Minkowski appears in two cites you added, and it's apparent you need to pay more attention to your sources. Peterson/Silberstein don't say "the idea behind eternalism or the block universe was inspired by relativity", and they don't say "that Minkowski's mathematical treatment of relativity (along with the relativity of simultaneity) inspires many modern eternalists". They say the idea goes back to Parmenides and that Minkowski suggests "time and space should be united in a single, four-dimensional manifold". That's consistent with Dowden: "The name derives from the fact that a Minkowski diagram would represent events as points in a block..." Not surprisingly, you prefer your own WP:OR, while arguing that the sources, to whom you admittedly pay little attention, somehow support what you are saying.

I can't stop you from posting it to yet a fourth venue... thanks for shopping.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've moved this discussion to Talk:Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)#Debate_over_whether_any_philosophers_define_.22block_universe.22_to_mean_something_different_than_.22eternalism.22, and added some additional comments at the end, as well as some introductory comments at the start. Hypnosifl (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Eternalism (philosophy of time) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 00:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think I am doing that constitutes edit warring now? My most recent edit did not restore the changes I made to sections unrelated to our dispute, I said in the edit note I would temporarily accept your erasing them until others commented on the issue of whether it's OK for us to make edits to sections besides the lede as long as they don't involve the eternalism/block universe dispute. And I thought you had agreed to my temporary compromise of restoring the lede to a version immediately before the dispute, which is all I did in that most recent edit. Hypnosifl (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see how 3 reverts in less than 6 hours based solely on your unilateral "temporary solution" constitutes edit warring?[1][2][3] You don't see how your edit summary is misleading? I provided justification 1) in both of my edit summaries,[4][5] 2) on the article talk page,[6] 3) on the dispute resolution page,[7] and 4) on the request for page protection.[8] You may not think it's sufficient justification, but it's misleading to revert a third time claiming "no justification" as if I haven't said a word. Very simply, I asked you not to "make changes while the dispute resolution has been put on hold", and you've repeatedly refused to comply.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 11:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Eternalism (philosophy of time), Talk:Four-dimensionalism". Thank you. --Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 21:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 15:45, 1 August 2012 (that's immediately followed by the explanation "Other users may have already quoted you with a diff", which hadn't happened here. And WP:REDACT explicitly says replacing own comment with bracketed summary is fine, while editing others' comments is not)

I am not "editing" the RfC that you're attempting to erase. I'm simply attempting to restore it without altering the meaning in any way... If you don't want it struck out, fine, but stop trying to erase it completely despite my repeated objections.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Editing" includes striking out someone else's words. In Wikipedia:REDACT they describe various recommended ways of changing one's own comments, including striking out, and then say "Please do not apply any such changes to other editors' comments without permission." (I haven't, and don't, give you permission to put a strike through my words) Do you disagree that "any such changes" includes the change of putting a strike through some text, which they had discussed immediately above that sentence? In addition, do you deny that the section above says it's acceptable to replace one's own words with a bracketed "placeholder" giving a quick synopsis of what was said? Hypnosifl (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDACT is not talking about removing an RfC in it's entirety despite the objections of another user, (as nominator, you should have removed the tag only, per WP:RfC#Ending RfCs). Clearly, WP:REDACT is talking about striking out the extant comments of another user.

• User:RFC bot 08:01, 1 August 2012 (Added: Talk:Eternalism (philosophy of time).)

It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement. Therefore, use "Show preview" and think about how your amended statement may look to others before you save it. Removing or substantially altering a comment after it has been replied to may deprive the reply of its original context.

— WP:Talk page guidelines, WP:REDACT

—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to reinstate the RfC with the same summary statement that'd be totally fine with me, as I said I only removed it because you were objecting that I was misrepresenting your basic position in the argument, so I wanted to get that cleared up in case you would see my RfC summary as similarly misrepresenting your position. There is nothing in the rules suggesting that taking back a newly-created RfC should be treated any differently than taking back any other newly-created comment that no one else has responded to, and while the rules do say "it is best" not to remove comments, this is followed by a comment suggesting the reason it is normally best not to do this is that others may have already responded, which hadn't happened in this case; further, it is then followed by various accepted ways of "taking back" a comment, and this includes my method of putting a placeholder in brackets. Do you disagree that 1) the rules indicate it is OK to replace a comment with a bracketed placeholder, and say nothing about newly-created RfC that no one has responded to being an exception to this, and 2) when they say ""Please do not apply any such changes to other editors' comments without permission", that is intended to include putting a strike through someone else's comments? Please tell me clearly if you agree or disagree with 1) and 2). (edit: never mind 2), I see you have just replaced the comment without the strike. However, I don't think you have any particular basis for "objecting" to my replacing the comment with a placeholder, since the rules say that this is generally OK, and since you hadn't responded to the comment so it's not as if this will cause any of your own comments to appear confused) Hypnosifl (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RfC#Ending RfCs—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What section of that link do you think is relevant? There is nothing there that says the person who added an RfC isn't free to change their mind and remove it a short time later if there have not yet been any responses, in fact they say manual removal is OK: "Manually added RfCs must be manually closed. This is accomplished by deleting the text that you added from the RfC page." Again, I would be happy to reinstate the RfC if you want that and are willing to approve the summary, but I see no point in leaving up the full summary when the actual RfC has been removed. Hypnosifl (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Talk:Eternalism (philosophy of time) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Hypnosifl, I've responded to your thread at DRN. An answer to the question I ask there, or any comments or observations about my grasp of the situation, would be welcome. Just wanted to make sure you don't miss it; thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, it may help to keep what you say at DRN. Large posts can be difficult to understand for some volunteers. Is it possible you can try shortening it down so it's easier to understand? Thanks! Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 12:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trim = remove. Sorry to be a pain :-) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 13:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal is fine with me, but on the Eternalism talk page Machine Elf had been objecting to my removing my own comments, even if no one had responded, accusing me of violating WP:REDACT, so that's why I used strike instead. Hypnosifl (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the long block, left a very brief line struck-out because otherwise my "edit: sorry, ..." comment following would be unclear. My comment is still a bit long because of the quotes--I can remove those too if you request, but the fact that they're just quotes and not discussion means they shouldn't make my comment any harder to follow, IMO. Hypnosifl (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Eternalism (philosophy of time) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 22:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my changes and I restored them once, not even close to violating the three-revert rule (if my restoring an edit once is "edit warring", why isn't your reversion of my edit also edit warring?) I also provided reasonably detailed reasons in my edit notes; if you disagree, for example, with my point that Help:Footnotes#Explanatory_notes clearly allows footnotes that offer additional explanation along with multiple sources, rendering your argument for reverting my footnote invalid, please raise this on the talk page rather than immediately rushing to throw yet another accusation of rule violations at me. Likewise, if you think there is some wikipedia guideline saying the cite for an explanation of a view cannot be from someone who is summarizing a view they disagree with, point it out, otherwise your comment "the author is ridiculing them" does not seem to be a valid justification for deleting my cite for the summary of the neo-Lorentzian justification for presentism (and replacing it with a cite that is not talking about the neo-Lorentzian view at all, or about a way that any philosophers have tried to show that relativity is compatible with presentism). Hypnosifl (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Ada Lovelace Day 2012 edit-a-thon, Harvard University - You are invited!

Now in its fourth year, Ada Lovelace Day is an international celebration of women in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), and related fields. Participants from around New England are invited to gather together at Harvard Law School to edit and create Wikipedia entries on women who have made significant contributions to the STEM fields. Register to attend or sign up to participate remotely - visit this page to do either. 00:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Regarding Walking with Dinosaurs (film), the passage you added was already included in the "Use of voiceovers" section. I am anticipating for that section to expand with further detail. Reviews so far have disparaged the voiceovers, and I expect that the filmmakers will try to respond to that. This is a kind of a "Controvery" section that can encapsulate the debate. What do you think? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I had just looked for something about voices in the Production section alongside things like animation and music, didn't notice there was a separate section later. I do think it's a better idea to give the subject its own section, since as you say there will probably be more discussion on this (especially with all the bad reviews that specifically target the voiceovers). Hypnosifl (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, do you think we should mention voiceovers in "Production" at least in passing? We could do that and then provide an anchor link to the stand-alone section. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a good place to mention it, it might be worth adding a sentence with an internal link to the "Use of voiceovers" section, but picking a place seems a little tricky--the first paragraph of the "Production" section discusses developments in production chronologically (while the second is exclusively about budget/financing), and we don't yet know at what stage the decision to add voiceovers was made (one of the quotes in the "Use of voiceovers" suggests the decision probably goes back to before the animation when they were still in the character design phase). We could also just hold off and wait until more information on the production history comes out. Hypnosifl (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NE Meetup #4: January 18 at MIT Building 5

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, You have been invited to the New England Wikimedians 2014 kick-off party and Wikipedia Day Celebration at Building Five on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus on Saturday, January 18th, from 3-5 PM. Afterwards, we will be holding an informal dinner at a local restaurant. If you are curious to join us, please do so, as we are always looking for people to come and give their opinion! Finally, be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. I hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Women's History Edit-a-thons in Massachusetts this March - You are invited!

New England Wikimedians is excited to announce a series of Wikipedia edit-a-thons that will be taking place at colleges and universities throughout Massachusetts as part of Wikiwomen's History Month from March 1 - March 31. We encourage you to join in an edit-a-thon near you, or to participate remotely if you are unable to attend in person (for the full list of articles, click here). Events are currently planned for the cities/towns of Boston, Northampton, South Hadley, and Cambridge. Further information on dates and locations can be found on our user group page. Questions? Contact Girona7 (talk)

NE Meetup #5: April 19th at Clover Food Lab in Kendall Square

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, New England Wikimedians would like to invite you to the April 2014 meeting, which will be a small-scale meetup of all interested Wikimedians from the New England area. We will socialize, review regional events from the beginning of the year, look ahead to regional events of 2014, and discuss other things of interest to the group. Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. Also, if you haven't done so already, please consider signing up for our mailing list and connect with us on Facebook and Twitter. We hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk) and Maia Weinstock (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Adrianne Wadewitz edit-a-thons in Southern New England

As you may have already heard, the Wikipedia community lost an invaluable member of the community last month. Adrianne Wadewitz was a feminist scholar of 18th-Century British literature, and a prolific editor of the site. As part of a worldwide series of tributes, New England Wikimedians, in conjunction with local institutions of higher learning, have created three edit-a-thons that will be occurring in May and June. The events are as follows: May 21st at Northeastern University's Snell Library, in the Digital Scholarship Commons on the second floor May 22nd at Brown University's Rockefeller Library, in the Digital Scholarship Lab June 25th at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (exact location TBA), where we will also be hosting a "how to conduct an edit-a-thon" session beforehand We hope that you will be able to join us, whether you are an experienced editor or are using Wikipedia for the first time. If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

Upcoming events hosted by New England Wikimedians!

After many months of doubt, nature has finally warmed up and summer is almost here! The New England Wikimedians user group have planned some upcoming events. This includes some unique and interesting events to those who are interested: Cape Cod Wiknic and Photography Blitz on June 14th in Barnstable County, with complete travel reimbursements available for those who participate Adrianne Wadewitz Memorial Edit-a-thon on June 25th at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (exact location TBA), where we will also be hosting a "how to conduct an edit-a-thon" session beforehand 3rd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, which will feature at least one guest speaker, and possibly many more Although we also aren't hosting this year's Wikimania, we would like to let you know that Wikimania this year will be occurring in London in August: Wikimania 2014 in London If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

Upcoming events hosted by New England Wikimedians!

After many months of doubt, nature has finally warmed up and summer is almost here! The New England Wikimedians user group have planned some upcoming events. This includes some unique and interesting events to those who are interested: Cape Cod Wiknic and Photography Blitz on June 14th in Barnstable County, with complete travel reimbursements available for those who participate Adrianne Wadewitz Memorial Edit-a-thon on June 25th at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (exact location TBA), where we will also be hosting a "how to conduct an edit-a-thon" session beforehand 3rd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, which will feature at least one guest speaker, and possibly many more Although we also aren't hosting this year's Wikimania, we would like to let you know that Wikimania this year will be occurring in London in August: Wikimania 2014 in London If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding this (very old) edit, I'm wondering if you can provide a source or at least some more details... it seems as though it should be entirely possible to separate out the subsets with a reasonable degree of accuracy, since that kind of thing happens with signal analysis all the time. Given any individual photon hit, it seems that one should be able to assign a meaningful probability that it is a member of one or the other set, and that probability would be better than 50-50 given the distinct patterns of each set. There is no a priori statistical reason (that I can see) that would rule this out. So why the claim that it cannot be done? Thanks, --Outdowands (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday July 16, 1-5pm: New England Wiknic

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" at John F. Kennedy Park, near Harvard Square, Cambridge, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck. Sunday July 16 New England Wiknic (also on Facebook) 1–5pm - come by any time! Look for us by the Wikipedia / Wikimedia banner! We hope to see you there! --Phoebe (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mind uploading in fiction, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mind uploading in fiction until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]