text:
Talk:Catastrophism

snowball earth
What about the "Snowball Earth" theory? That comes from real scientists... does it qualify?

Also read Asteroid impact if you think that such events are unlikely.

I've always associated this theory with Cuvier, but neither this article nor the article on him make the association. Am I just wrong?(unsigned)

Omission corrected. Vsmith 01:07, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added an entire new subsection to more correctly present the views of Cuvier and of the English natural theologians of the early 19th century. Rusty Cashman 23:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

floods
Actually, the Missoula Floods seem a good example of a much earlier discovery contrary to uniformitarianism though not one with global reprecussions. - KarlHallowell 17:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ackerman/velikovsky
I removed what appears to be a promotional bit about books published by a vanity press. An attempt to revive the velikovsky cruft. Vsmith 00:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Pernicious nonsense
I've removed it again. It was online long enough for a blog to latch onto it and use it to bash Wikipedia: http://johnmckay.blogspot.com/2006/10/object-lesson-in-wiki-research-this.html  It was inserted by nearly identical anon IP addresses.
 * 66.82.9.90 contribs (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2006 UTC. 7 days.
 * 66.82.9.56 contribs (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2006 UTC. almost 6 hours.
 * 66.82.9.73 contribs (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2006 UTC. 66 minutes.
 * 66.82.9.85 contribs (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2006 UTC. 10 minutes.

Hu 15:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

 * It keeps getting re-added by a vigilant and non-communicative anon. -- Stbalbach 16:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

A.H. Delsemme
We should add references to A.H. Delsemme's book, "Our Cosmic Origins", which gives a very thorough analysis of the various "catastrophes" which paved the way to life: Jupiter disrupting planetoids early in the Solar System's formation, Earth's collision with a Mars-sized planetoid (formation of the moon and destruction of Earth's initial CO2-rich atmosphere), later cometary bombardment of Earth (which enriched Earth's "new" atmosphere), various discussions on fundamental chemical reactions and elements abundance, etc. The author does not advocate panspermia. Rather, he tries to isolate the various events which helped life emerge. All in all, a very interesting book. -- Hugo Dufort 10:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

UNIFORMITARIANISM vs GRADUALISM
Am confused. Always thought that Uniformitarianism was, basically, same natural laws + same processes = same results. So, while I agree that Uniformitarianism may imply Gradualism, how does it require Gradualism?

````David Tisdale
 * Uniformitarianism is a term that is used a couple of different ways in science. Historically in geology it has been associated with the views advocated by Charles Lyell that the geological features of the earth could be explained by the long term action of forces that can still be observed in action in the present day. This view was put forward in direct opposition to the idea that the earth had been shaped by catastrophic (and possibly supernatural) events in its past. As the article makes clear this view advocated by Lyell is really a combination of uniformitarianism (using the philosophy of science defintion you use) and the assumption of gradualism. Even if this usage is not entirely consistent with the modern definitions it is still appropriate for this article, as the 2 labels (uniformitariansim and catastrophism) for these viewpoints are widely known, and the debate between them was historically very important in the development of the earth sciences.Rusty Cashman 19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Hi, in germanspeaking countries it is common to oppose gradualism to catastrophism as theories about the history of the earth (smoothe and slow vs. quick and dirty), while uniformitarianism ("Aktualismus") is rather seen as a method or an axiom of geological investigation. Hereby "Aktualismus" is opposed to "Ekzeptionalismus" (the view, that there may have existed processes in the past, which do not happen today anymore (like the formation of Banded Iron Formations), or in the extreme case: that the laws of nature may have changed during the course of time (like the change of the gravitational constant, proposed by Paul Dirac). I wonder if there is any term like "exceptionalism" in english? Greets Geoz (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Why catastrophism is not uniformitarian? After all, asteroids and volcanoes are real, observable objects which are assumed to act with laws of physics, same as today. Alliumnsk (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Einstein bit
The part about Immanuel Velikovsky that says "Not all scientists however shared this viewpoint, and Albert Einstein remained a close friend of Velikovsky's until his death." needs a source. Gedfan (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have provided several sources for the entire paragraph, and made it clear that while Einstein may have been his friend he carefully avoided endorsing most of his ideas.Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sedimentology research
The study cited - or at least the publicity blurbs, haven't seen the Science article - says nothing about catastrophism.

 * ===Recent developments regarding formation of geological landscapes ===

 * The longstanding understanding of how the "sedimentary geological record" was formed is being challenged as being in error, according to research by geologists at Indiana University (Bloomington) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The research, which appears in the December 14th edition of Science, counters the prevailing uniformitarian view of geologists that mud only settles when water is placid, instead showing that "muds will accumulate even when currents move swiftly."

 * What is most interesting for students of the geological and fossil record is how this research potentially overturns the previous view on mudstone deposition, erosion, and re-deposition, as the press release outlines:

"The finding feels like something of a vindication, Schieber says. He and his colleagues have (genially) argued about whether muds could deposit from rapidly flowing water. Schieber had posited the possibility after noting an apparent oddity in the sedimentary rock record."

 * Schieber noted that, "In many ancient mudstones, you see not only deposition, but also erosion and rapid re-deposition of mud - all in the same place... The erosive features are at odds with the notion that the waters must have been still all or most of the time. We needed a better explanation."

Simply does not belong in the article. Seems to be synthesis or original research to make that jump. It is simply a study of sedimentological processes, a refinement of scientific understanding. Vsmith (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

 * It actually does belong in the article, as it does indeed deal with "Catastrophism re-emerging and re-examined by science". Perhaps the confusion lies in the wording of the subhead title, so I've retitled that.

And it's not OR, as it simply reports what the Science article reports - which is about the challenge to catastrophism. Goo2you (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

 * claiming that it is "supporting catastrophism" as your section title does, is blatant (and fallacious) WP:OR. HrafnTalkStalk 14:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

 * No it's not, any more than claiming the "Luis Alvarez impact event hypothesis" or "Moon-formation" entries support "Catastrophism re-emerging and re-examined by science" is WP:OR. Please be reasonable here. Goo2you (talk 15:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

 * You have not established even the slightest connection between the cited article and catastrophism, let alone support from it for catastrophism. It is you who is being unreasonable here. HrafnTalkStalk 16:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC) In order to make your case, you must demonstrate, without resorting to WP:OR or WP:SYNTH that the cited article lends substantive support to catastrophism. HrafnTalkStalk 16:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Hopefully with this revision you will finally be satisfied that the connection exists, as established by multiple reliable sources, and no OR is occurring. Otherwise, someone might start to think that you own this article. Some friendly advice:"'If you find yourself warring with other contributors over deletions, reversions, and so on, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later... Since working on an article does not entitle you to 'own' the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her...'"Perhaps the real issue here is that this challenge to uniformitarianism in the geologic record means that, as Macquaker and Bohacs infer, a huge tower of interpretation, touching on fields as diverse as climate change, earth history and even solar system dynamics, has been built on a flawed assumption: that mudstones always settled out slowly in calm water. Now that the assumption is shown to be unfounded, it is not just the geologists who will have to consider a paradigm shift. And paradigm shifts hurt. Goo2you (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Goo2you: the sentence you provided making the link between the article and catastrophism is pure WP:OR:"The longstanding view that the accumulations of the "sedimentary geological record" could not have been formed catastrophically, but instead were largely settled from slow-moving or still suspensions, is being challenged as being in error, according to research by geologists at Indiana University (Bloomington) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology." Not a single source (reliable or otherwise) making the linkage in sight. What part of "demonstrate, without resorting to WP:OR or WP:SYNTH that the cited article lends substantive support to catastrophism" did you fail to comprehend? As for your "friendly advice", it should not surprise you that I don't take advice as to my conduct from disruptive and tendentious editors. HrafnTalkStalk 01:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Hrafn, the link between the article and catastrophism is established quite clearly within the cited article itself. What we are dealing with here appears to be a problem with WP:NPOV, not WP:OR, as evidence by your (now third) personal attack on me in this comment. Perhaps if you took a few days off, cooled off for a while, and maybe edited articles that you aren't so personally attached to and that tend to make you "more than a little irate" when you don't like another editors encyclopedic edits. Just a friendly suggestion. Goo2you (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Goo2you: needless to say I consider your assessment and your "suggestion" to be spurious and self-serving. Rather than continue to engage in a low-intensity edit-war with yourself, I have templated and tagged the disputed section. The specific statements that I am requesting direct quotes (preferably the entire paragraph, to ensure context) on, on this talkpage, to ensure that they are not WP:OR/WP:SYNTH are: Failure to substantiate these points, with aforementioned quotations, will result in the section being deleted again. HrafnTalkStalk 02:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * that the research in question "challanged as being in error" "The longstanding view that the accumulations of the 'sedimentary geological record' could not have been formed catastrophically"
 * that the research "counters the prevailing uniformitarian view of geologists"

I'm a geologist and I read the Science paper in question when it came out. It is interesting work but NOT in any way supportive of "catastrophism" in the way portrayed in this article. In fact, because experimental evidence was used in the study to interpret parts of the rock record, it is by definition classic uniformitarianism. Now we know that muds can accumulate in fast-moving water -- this does not overthrow any paradigms of sedimentary geology. We've expanded what we know about sedimentation. Most fine-grained sediments can still be conclusively shown to have been deposited in slow-moving waters. This section should be removed from this article because it is simply not related to the topic. I'd do it myself, but I'm still very new to Wikipedia. I encourage someone else to do it right. Wilson44691 (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks Wilson44691 -- I rather suspected that was the case, and have reverted the article on the basis of your comment. We seem to have a consensus here that the section does not belong in this article. I would therefore suggest that it should not be reintroduced without discussion that leads to a change of this consensus. HrafnTalkStalk 03:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that Goo2you is playing out the same argument on Uniformitarianism (science), with a similar consensus to reject it. HrafnTalkStalk 04:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC) And Sedimentology too -- he have been a busy boy. HrafnTalkStalk 04:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience category?
I'm assuming that this article is in the pseudoscience category because of its association with creationism. However, there are modern, scientifically-accepted variants of catastrophism that have nothing to do with creationism — and they're even mentioned in the article! I think the connection to pseudoscience needs to be clarified, or the article made more general and less creationism-specific and the category tag removed entirely. --Sapphic (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Why should there have to be some exclusion of creationist views? Creationism is in harmony with the thermodynamic laws much more than any evolutionary theory could ever hope to be. The assertion that reality emerged as a creative act by an outside being is completely logical. I am in favor of treating both theories equally and neutrally so that readers can evaluate the information and decide for themselves what they will adhere to or reject. Your comments above sound very much like a censor keeping people from knowing that there are other valid views to be explored. Obviously I have my own opinions about evolutionary models but I don't try to censor them away to bolster my position.CatastrophicOne (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So true! The First Law of Thermodynamics states that: "Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form" or "energy is always conserved"...Lets include both sides of the argument and let the readers decide for themselves..--Gniniv (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Evolution of biological organisms does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. That's some old creationists arguments that even Ken Ham objects to. The first law talks about the conservation of energy. I have not seen any cases where it is said that organisms produce energy from nothing or destroy energy. The second law is about entropy, which is about converting one type of energy into another. For example, a system that would claim that it can convert thermal energy into something else without any differential in thermal energy is not possible according to this law. No such thing occurs with biological systems. Biological systems usually start off with photons which come from the Sun. Some systems use certain molecules to start off, such as H2S. I'll let you read about the 3rd one and get back to me. As for god or gods, they certainly do violate such laws. After all, how did they create things? Vmelkon (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

NeoCatastrophism
The term NeoCatastrophism has been around since at least 1990. The concept has been around since at least the 1970s. The following is by anti-creationist and evolutionist Richard Huggett who is/was a geology lecturer at the U. of Manchester.

Catastrophism: Systems of Earth History

RICHARD HUGGETT

Lecturer, School of Geography, University of Manchester

Pub: Edward Arnold: A division of Hodder & Stoughton LONDON

1990

p5

The purpose of this book is to explore past and present systems of Earth history, and especially the old and new catastrophism, with a view to seeing the shape that neocatastrophism might take in the future, thus giving rudimentary form to Thorn's 'fully articulated standpoint'. Before proceeding to the meat of the text, a general discussion on the nature of catastrophes and catastrophism will be given with the aim of clarifying problematical issues in a subject beset with misinterpretations and misunderstandings

p194-6

Neocatastrophism and uniformitarianism

The evidence for sudden and violent events having occurred during the course of Earth history is very strong. It is far less clear whether the catastrophic events were caused by terrestrial or cosmic causes. But, whatever their origin, if grand catastrophes have occurred then the tenets of uniformitarianism collapse. It is rather curious, therefore, to find that recent attempts to reevaluate catastrophism in the light of demonstrable non-uniformity of rate and state in Earth history have produced rather lame results. The chief reason for this appears to be an unwillingness to let go the term uniformitarianism. For instance, to accommodate the episodic nature of rock-forming events into a gradualistic system, S. Moorbath (1977) coined the term 'episodic uniformitarianism'. Even geoscientists who hold that many episodic events occur with uncommon suddenness and violence seem reluctant to drop the term uniformitarianism. Thus, to describe his view that long intervals of gradual change in the stratigraphical record are punctuated by short bouts of sudden and violent change, Ager (1973, 1981) offered and term 'catastrophic uniformitarianism'. George W. Wetherill and Eugene M. Shoemaker (1982) went so far as to declaim that the process of cosmic bombardment does nothing to undermine the principles of uniformitarianism. They argued that the effects of cosmic encounters are catastrophic in terms of their magnitude, but applied to the interpretation of Earth history they are uniformitarian in the sense that current geological processes are used to explain the past. The mistake they made here was to equate uniformitarianism with actualism. To be sure, the bombardment hypothesis is actualistic, even though impacts have never actually been observed: the cratering record shows that impacts have occurred, possibly periodically, throughout the history of the Earth. But, impact events occur suddenly and with much violence. The bombardment hypothesis is thus at odds with one of the chief ingredients of Lyellian uniformitarianism, the substantive uniformity of rate. With the substantive uniformity of state already undermined, that means that, if the bombardment hypothesis be accepted, then both Lyell's substantive uniformities, and thus uniformitarianism, must be rejected.

Statements by neocatastrophists on the implications of cosmic catastrophism for the neo-Darwinian system of organic history carry much more of a punch. In his book The Nemesis Affair (1986), David M. Raup sees the current debate over cosmic process and mass extinctions as a battle between the ideas espoused by Cuvier on the one hand and Lyell on the other. Likewise, Kenneth Hsii (1986) contends that the new perspective on mass extinctions compels geologists and palaeobiologists to shake the Lyellian and Darwinian scales from their eyes. Antoni Hoffman (1989b) thinks that such extreme views go too far. He opines that Raup errs in pointing to Cuvier as a godfather of global mass extinctions: Cuvier recognized discontinuities in the fossil record in the Paris Basin and explained them by a series of local catastrophes; a truer progenitor is William Buckland who did envision worldwide catastrophes. But, the question of grandparentage aside, Hoffman believes that the twentieth-century debate over mass extinctions, unlike the debate slogged out during the early nineteenth century, 'hinges more upon the assessment of the quality and meaning of empirical data of stratigraphy and historical geology rather than upon the patterns of thought established long ago by Brocchi, Cuvier, Buckland, Lyell and Darwin - especially since those patterns were incomparably more complex than a simple black-and-white clich6 of catastrophism versus uniformitarianism. . . would suggest' (Hoffman, 1989b, 23). To Hoffman, the current revival of the concept of geologically instantaneous global biotic crises is not a revolution against the allegedly gradualist system of the geosciences, is not a collapse of the fortress of prejudice and dogma which for long suppressed the rival viewpoint on Earth's and life's history, but is a consequence of new discoveries and new refinements in stratigraphical time correlation (Hoffman, 1989b, 23). Admittedly, only empirical investigations can reveal whether mass extinctions have occurred. But the existence of catastrophic events which could give rise to mass extinctions seems beyond doubt. If these catastrophic changes in the physical world have actually led to mass extinctions, then the neo-Darwinian system is severely shaken. Gould (1985) makes this point very clearly: if mass extinctions are indeed caused by occasional bombardment episodes, if they are more frequent, more rapid, more extensive, and more different qualitatively in effect than traditionally expected, then the microevolutionary processes invoked by the neo-Darwinians are inadequate to explain the shape of the biosphere. Thus it is possible that current revival of catastrophism might well signal the downfall of Lyellian and neo-Darwinian doctrines. It is certainly doing for geoscience what the high-fibre diet has done for constipation.

I did not invent the term. Ignornace is no excuse. I'm changing it back. Christian Skeptic (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Then I would suggest that the article needs to delineate 'Neo-Catastrophism' (and its development) rather than simply baldly introducing science's 'examination' of it. Parachuting in new terms without explanation is bound to raise suspicions of WP:OR. HrafnTalkStalk 03:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Atra-Hasis
I'm not sure how this is relevant. The article is not about catastrophes but something quite different, catastrophism. And it certainly is not a place to start claiming Antarctica is Atlantis. dougweller (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Agreed, the focus of this article is geology, not mythology. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Such material belongs in Deluge myth, not here. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Velikovsky & Einstein
The remark that Velikovsky and Einstein remained friends from 1946 to Einstein's death in 1955 needs to be rephrased because the two were out of contact from 1946 to 1953 when Velikovsky addressed the Princeton Graduate Forum, which lecture Einstein did not attend for fear of what his attendance would do to his reputation. Instead, as Velikovsky remarks in Stargazers and Gravediggers, Einstein sent two women from his household to the lecture as intermediaries. It should also be noted that the two men did not see each other from 1923 in Berlin until they happened to meet at a lake at Princeton in 1952 or thereabouts. Their interaction in 1946 was entirely by correspondence with Einstein in Princeton and Velikovsky in New York. 128.252.65.183 (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

''== Bias ==

I've been reading this page, and I have noticed that it is biased towards the supposed proof of Uniformitarianism over Catastrophism and other hypotheses as verified facts. It needs to be edited heavily to provide a neutral tone toward the subject and possible related subjects, such as the Creationist view of science (which is not pseudoscience). Because this topic deals largely with non-verifiable hypotheses on both sides, it needs to be treated with caution and respect for both opinions as both are possible.

Romulo San Juan de Soto (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

 * A discussion of catastrophism is a study of bias. The Creationist view is not science, it is pseudoscience: the "supposed proof" is avoided only by the unlettered. Complaints of "bias" do always seem to have the subtext, as here, "not my point-of-view". The evolution of Catastrophism in the history of ideas receives an unbiased report in the present article, which could be expanded and improved— though not, hopefully, by tagging it as "not my point of view"--Wetman (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The following are defenses of Creationism as a scientific theory in the Geology Discussion Page
''==Catastrophic Geology Debate (or the Validity of an Alternative View of Creationism as a valid Scientific Theory)==

The one-user campaign to add a "catastrophic geology" (a mildly used term at most) section to the main geology page (along with other questionable edits) is at best, a misguided irrelevant sidebar, and at worse, a veiled Creationist infiltration, in my humble opinion. Thoughts? Shouldn't there be an actual article about this topic, before it is thrust on the main geology page? Does the main geology page need some kind of protection? I'm no admin, so there isn't mush I can do but shake my head.Qfl247 (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I've asked the user to discuss here rather than revert warring. The sources used are not reliable. Vsmith (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

'''I totally agree that edit wars are useless. Before I move on to less dogmatically defended topics, I will put my replies to the criticism and my defenses on this talk page (Please see below...) --Gniniv (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)'''

Please read WP:3rr and discuss your concerns on the article talk rather than edit warring. Also, please read reliable sources. Vsmith (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

'''Thank you for your diligence to preserve article integrity. As all my claims are thoroughly referenced and legitimate information (Please feel free to check all of them) and I have not deleted any prior information I believe this section can stay. --Gniniv (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)'''

 * Along those lines, your edits to the geology page are scary... at least two are directly Creationist Propaganda, and many others are nearly so. Only real science please, and that means real articles from real peer-reviewd publications.  And yes, some of yours are that, but the important once you use are certainly not. Qfl247 (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

'''I appreciate your persistence to uphold "pure science"-but science itself is defined as the investigation of all evidence and the formation of a theory that attempts to explain the results. It is not the formation of a certain theory (whether that theory be currently accepted or not) and the dogmatic insistence that all alternative theories are not "pure science". Please also recognise that even if this reply is considered insane, all alternative ideas must be accepted in a free encyclopaedia like wikipedia, no matter how zany!--Gniniv (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)'''

Also realise someone of an alternative viewpoint could easily call this suppression of a legitimately referenced Catastrophic Geology section as Uniformatarian Propaganda....--Gniniv (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

'''I intend to create a new article on Catastrophic Geology, due to suppression of the topic on the main page. Feel free to contribute!--Gniniv (talk) 05:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)'''

 * All alternative ideas must be accepted: No, WP:WEIGHT.
 * I think that your terminology on the debate is antiquated as well. Uniformitarianism and catastrophism are outdated and over-simplified; catastrophic events do happen, as does the slow march of time.
 * Pure scientists indeed do view all evidence.
 * Also, if you could please try to write in non-bold, it would be easier on the eyes. Thanks. Awickert (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem, it hurts my eyes to come think of it! I agree that minority view topics (which Catastrophic Geological Theory is definitely among) should be properly referenced and substantiated as all topics should be. If you check out the Catastrophic Geology article you can help contribute to its inclusion of both sides of the issue.--Gniniv (talk) 06:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC) --Gniniv (talk) 03:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

There never has been nor will there be a "pure science or scientist". All scientists view evidence through a "magic" ideology lense in which they align the given evidence according to their philosophy. The trick is recognising this innate bias and including people with different theories on a given set of evidence in the discussion. Resorting to calling views that do not agree with one's own, pseudo-scientific, or worse, will not advance the cause of scientific discovery one inch. Note that many of the great discoveries of science that we look back on today were formulated against a strong mainstream opposition to the researcher's theory. See Copernicus, Galileo--Gniniv (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

 * This is incorrect. Scientists observe and report based on empirical evidence and physical first principals. Certainly they do not do this perfectly, but to say that "all scientists are biased" would need some really strong backing, because the scientific method is really an attempt to escape bias. Awickert (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

True, the scientific method is designed to eliminate bias as much as possible, but surely you recognise that experimental error and data tracking can influence the result-perhaps drastically. I appreciate that you are at least willing to debate on our differing viewpoints, the other editors just ignore my challenges.--Gniniv (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I would agree with what you say here, although the perhaps drastically part would happen only when people really screw up with their interpretations and the error bars (i.e., not often, and when it happens, other scientists generally quickly point it out). I still don't see where your initial claims that scientists make observations to fit with a certain ideology work out. Awickert (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Notes on Future Plans for Catastrophism
I am going to place the Moon Formation Theory Section under Catastrophic Geology, I think it fits better there.--Gniniv (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

My goal is to increase the neutrality and references of this article to the point where it will be recognized on the main Geology page, and possibly merged with it in the future. I recognize its current neutrality (from both perspectives) leaves something to be desired. Any thoughts? I would welcome more editors from both points of view to work on this article..--Gniniv (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I don't think that this merge is going to happen. Catastrophism is an important entity in the history of thought, and so I see no reason to remove it. Furthermore, this sort of philosophical debate is absent from modern geology. Awickert (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is unlikely that this merge will happen-due to lack of willingness of modern geology's proponents to debate with challenges to their consensus on theories pertaining to the age of the earth etc..--Gniniv (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

 * That is because there is widespread evidence that they are right, and nothing to the contrary outside of interpretations of religious texts. It is a done deal. Awickert (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Catastrophic Geology... wording makes the point unclear
The article currently contains the following paragraph (I remove the citations so we can see the sentence flow): The paragraph starts off fine... explaining what the view point of those who support Catastrophic Geography is... but then it veers off track. The last few sentences (from "The most significant..." through "...such as Turkey") seem disjointed and not really connected to the first part. I am not sure if the article is trying to say that the theory of plate tectonics is part of Catastrophic Geology (doubtful) or that plate tectonics refutes Catastrophic Geology (more likely, but in which case... how?). And why does the paragraph end with the mention of Turkey? Is Catastrophic Geology uniquely Turkish or something? Is there a "Turkish school" of Catastrophic Geology that is different from other theories of Catastrophic Geology? Why is this sentence there? Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Many Catastrophic Geologists interpret the rock strata as much younger than the mainstream scientific consensus holds them to be. Catastrophists cite examples of geological change happening in a matter of months, instead of millions of years, as is widely taught. The most significant advances in 20th century geology has been the development of the theory of plate tectonics in the 1960s. Plate tectonic theory arose out of two separate geological observations: seafloor spreading. The theory revolutionized the Earth sciences. Catastrophic Geology and other alternative theories have been partly introduced in non-western countries such as Turkey.
 * Some of the references give a clue. AiG, Jay L. Wile of Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc., and the ICR. Primary sources of fringe views, without the benefit of a reliable third party source. . . dave souza, talk 17:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So do we cut the confusing material or clarify? Blueboar (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole section looks like a combination of creationist nonsense, original research and a few more reliable sources which probably make no mention of "Catastrophic Geology" – I've not checked them all, but this one notes the activities of the notorious creationist Adnan Oktar but doesn't include the term "catastrophic" or even "geology". Suggest deleting the section, if a reliable third party can be shown discussing this alleged position then that can be used as a basis for reinstatement. . . dave souza, talk 21:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree... consider it DONE. Thanks for your input. Blueboar (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I am going to re-insert the section due to the fact that all my sources are valid, and Catastrophism needs to give credit to YEC researchers who have advanced its cause. I am fine if we debate the issue but cutting all of it is to drastic.--Gniniv (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Claiming that Catastrophism is a psuedoscience ignores its contributions to Geologic thought, even amongst uniformitarian scientists. Deleting the controversy section leaves out a thouroghly referenced addition that adds information about the subject....Gniniv (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to get consensus here first, please stop this. Dougweller (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Gniviv, you obviously feel that this is an important section... OK... then rather than edit warring and reverting... let's discuss what you are trying to say and figure out if there is a better, less confusing, wording that gets the point across and is supported by reliable sources. To start... in your own words, what information are you trying to convey in the section? Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the Catastrophism article needs a section on the ongoing controversy the subject has spawned in the field of origins and mainstream scientific thought--Gniniv (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Since I came here to attempt to fix language and wording confusions, and am not all that familiar with the topic... would you please outline what that ongoing controversy is? What do the various sides of the debate say? Blueboar (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for questioning my claims. Here is how I perceive the debate. Catastrophism has taken renewed prominence the Uniformitarian line "the present is the key to the past" has fallen out of favor due to recent evidence (such as the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens) that rapid change can occur in Geological enviroments. The controversy is between the moderates (those who still recognise the principles of Uniformitarianism, while also accepting that Catastrophic events sometimes shape environments more rapidly-Modern Scientific Consensus) and the more radical (those who propose the current geological configuration of the earth is almost entirely due to catastrophic events-YEC)--Gniniv (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that my proposed section needs work, all that I ask is that it is edited, not removed....--Gniniv (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I think that your perception of "the debate" is anachronistic. This was a debate back in the very early 20th century, but was pretty sealed by the early-mid 20th century.
 * You should also note the edit comments I made when I removed references to the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption. Do you have evidence for this being important in geological thought, or is it just your own syntehsis? (I don't think it had any impact on this, though it did have a lot in terms of volcanic hazards.) Awickert (talk) 05:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A couple of points that need to be improved in the article. The catastrophists, so named by Whewell at the same time as he coined the term uniformitarians, believed what we'd now call old earth creationism, they had long abandoned the YEC position on the age of the earth. The catastrophist / uniformitarian debate took place in the 1820s to 1840s, by which time there was an effective merging of the two positions, but the polarised and partisan "history" portrayed by Lyell tends to be remembered and there have been exaggerated claims for the dominance of uniformitarianism. Further evidence of dramatic changes such as asteroid impacts has confirmed that merged position. YEC geology was a fringe religious view, notably promoted by the Prophetess Ellen White and later by George Macready Price, until the 1960s success of flood geology brought creation science to the forefront of pseudoscience, and made it a widely held religious view in the US. Have sources to hand, will aim to edit this article when time permits. . . dave souza, talk 07:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

 * OK... I think I understand what is intended. The next question is... is there a reliable source that discusses and describes this debate between the moderate/uniformitarian view point and the radical/YEC view point? Blueboar (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In brief, CD200: Uniformitarianism. Some examples at The Talk.Origins Archive: Catastrophism FAQs. Interestingly, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education the Act had among its definitions; "Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:.... (5) Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood;...". There may be some other useful pages on Talk.Origins Archive. For detailed history, see Ron Numbers' The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism, ISBN 0674023390, chapter 5 in the 1993 edition is "George McCready Price and the New Catastrophism".  Changing Views of the History of the Earth gives a useful outline of the history of earlier geology, Flood geology has some other useful sources. . . dave souza, talk 11:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Perhaps I misunderstood, but those sources seem to describe a debate between mainstream Geologists and Creation Science proponents. I was under the impression that the debate Gniniv was referring to was between two different groups of catastrophists.  Am I missing something? Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems regarding the Catastrophism Article
There are serious problems with the Catastrophism article:

As soon as any new information is added to the article it is deleted. The Catastrophism article for over the last year, has remained the SAME, with any new information being deleted. The article is biased, the only reason it's been setup is to attack creationists. The REAL problem is, is that the article just talks about creationism, the article is about Casastrophism why is 60% of it just talking about the bible and Christianity?. There are many different types of Catastrophism which have NOTHING to do with religion, why are they not discussed on the article?.

I suggest a section is added to the article regarding the work of Victor Clube He is known primarily for his work in collaboration with Bill Napier and others on the theory of "coherent catastrophism". I suggest reading their books The Cosmic Serpent (1982) and The Cosmic Winter (1990). 86.10.119.131 (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

 * The 'John Ray' section has been removed because it is a copyright violation of the source that you linked to. If you produce a version that does not have this problem then it could be integrated into the article (not sure that it would justify its own section though). Your description of the article doesn't seem to match its current content, Creationism is discussed in one short section and mentioned once or twice in other sections where relevant. As to Clube, a section on 'coherent catastrophism' looks worth having see here and maybe something on 'coordinated catastrophism' as well. Mikenorton (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There was no problem regarding the links i put up, one of them was useful becuase it actually showed a picture of the book i was quoting. The catastrophism article is embaressing there is nothing on it, no references, no links to read through, no external websites, no listed recommended reading books, some of the references given look dead, theres nothing there no books or external websites, how can we trust these sources, they seem non existant. Considering most geology or science students thesedays just rely on wikipedia, atleast something should be added to the Catatrophism article which will actually educate people. For example Immanuel Velikovsky's views are accepted by a number of scientists, why is this not mentioned in the article? The article is biased all it wants to do is try and discredit catastrophism. It's set up to laugh at Catastrophism, i have noticed most of the people who have edited the article all are strong uniformitarianists (have a look at there user pages and their beliefs) there is a big bias here. Why does the article start at discussing Creationism? Catastrophism can be traced back atleast 4000 years (even longer), it's been found in many ancient texts around the world, why is none of this mentioned? Why is just Creationism mentioned? The second section mentions Georges Cuvier, Georges Cuvier was a great man and i like his work but he was not the first catastrophist, especially not in Europe, becuase many others such as John Ray and William Whiston (both catastrophists) pre-date his work. Again none of this is mentioned. The Article is poor, and please check the history of the Catastrophism page and you will see basically nothing has been added to the article in over a year. If you read the books Controversy - Catastrophism and Evolution: The Ongoing Debate by Trevor Palmer or Perilous Planet Earth: Catastrophes and Catastrophism through the Ages by Trevor Palmer you would realise Catastrophism has a huge history which is far older than just a few hundred years. The article is poorly written and misleading. I do not contribute to wikipedia at all really anymore, so i will not help out at making the page better becuase it will just get deleted. Your have to wait til someone else comes to do that (that person does not exist) becuase it's obvious that the page will not be edited with any new information it will just stay as it is. For these reasons i am out. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I note that in 'Perilous Planet Earth: Catastrophes and Catastrophism through the Ages', Trevor Palmer starts with a chapter entitled 'Mythology, religion and catastrophism' and the book follows a similar overall structure to the article - I'm not saying that the article is anything like perfect or anywhere close to complete, just that it's not quite as bad as you're painting it. You have also failed to understand copyright violation issues, you can't just copy and paste from other websites, preferring instead to see signs of some sort of conspiracy. Ray, Clube and others should be included here as you have correctly identified but Velikovsky gets quite enough coverage here already I think - you would need to present some sort of evidence of support for him in scientific circles, I can't find any. Mikenorton (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

 * To mention ancient texts you'll need current reliable sources discussing them. It simply isn't true that " most geology or science students these days just rely on wikipedia", they wouldn't get very far if they did because our articles are too basic. I doubt that any editors here identify as 'uniformitarians', that seems to be mainly a misleading label when it's used (probably mainly by 'catastrophists') to describe current thinking and people. Dougweller (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:Jagged 85 cleanup
I removed this:
 * An alternative paradigm to the traditional view of catastrophism was proposed as early as the eleventh century by the Persian geologist, Avicenna (Ibn Sina, 980-1037), who provided the first uniformatarian explanations for geological processes in The Book of Healing. He recognized that mountains were formed after a long sequence of events. While discussing the formation of mountains, he explained:

""Either they are the effects of upheavals of the crust of the earth, such as might occur during a violent earthquake, or they are the effect of water, which, cutting itself a new route, has denuded the valleys, the strata being of different kinds, some soft, some hard... It would require a long period of time for all such changes to be accomplished, during which the mountains themselves might be somewhat diminished in size.""

Later in the eleventh century, the Chinese naturalist, Shen Kuo (1031–1095), also recognized the concept of 'deep time'. After The Book of Healing was translated into Latin in the twelfth century, a few other natural philosophers also reasoned in uniformitarian terms. The Muslim heritage site is not reliable. Avicenna's theory on the formation of mountains was considered ahead of his time (in 1830) but most of his theories on geology were not. J8079s (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Overall Review of Article
I think the article is a great generalization of the topic. There are sold references to back data. Some things that could be changed though are the lead section, structure, and expansion on facts. In the lead section instead of going right into a comparison between Catastrophism and Uniformitarianism add more onto the origins of Catastrophism. Religion had a huge influence on science before the 19th century so the section on creationists needs to be expanded on greatly adding more major specific events in the creationist theory that alludes to why Catastrophism plausible. From what I read in the article it seems as if Georges Cavier is one of the main scientists that have empirical evidence backing Catastrophism. Even though there is a link to the bio page of Cavier there should still be a time period when he lived, where he studied, and more information of his findings, works, and expeditions. After the history section it jumps to current applications. There is a whole chunk of about 100 years of science missing from the description. Understanding Uniformitarianism is key to understanding the history of Catastrophism but instead of throwing ideas about Uniformitarianism in here and there in the article there should be a criticisms section and that is where ideas about Uniformitarianism should be. Lastly the part about moon formation at the end looks like it was just thrown into the bottom of the article. Instead try to rework the portion about the moon in somewhere else because it is a great bit but does not fit where it is. Lgn006 (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Lindsey Nourse 7:12pm February 10, 2014

With due respect to the previous contributors to the this article I would like to make following suggestions to strengthen the page. Firstly, In this wiki article about Catastrohism, I think, lead section gives a very clear idea about the article, but little more information about Cuvier and his importance in explaining Catastrophism could have intrigued readers to learn about his contribution to this field of research.

Secondly, topics seems to follow the theme of the article, but picture of Cuvier and other significant scientist might have made this article more interesting to read. In addition to that a little explanation of what Noah’s Arc is and a picture while describing creationist’s interpretation would have made this article more interesting.

Thirdly, I think, information provided under the subtitle of comparison to universalism does not gives reader any new information, so it could have been eliminated or strengthen with new information that hasn’t been previously described in the article. At the same time, information under the subtitle of current application could have been broadened a bit.

Fourthly, although I don’t doubt that the article was biased since the article almost brought up uniformitarianism and showed opposite side of the argument, it would be better to put Charles Lyell in the subtitle in describing uniformitarianism Because he was as influential as Cuvier in uniformmitarianism’s  side. Abue.chowdhury (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Catastrophism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060624122338/http://www.bartleby.com/65/un/uniformi.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/un/uniformi.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060909180136/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv4-56 to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv4-56

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Cuvier
"The leading scientific proponent of catastrophism in the early eighteenth century was the French anatomist and paleontologist Georges Cuvier." - Cuvier was born in 1769, so how can he possibly have been the leading proponent of catastrophism is the early eighteenth century? - Eroica (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Good catch, 18th seems to be simply an error, same ref used in lead for 19th so have changed it. Thanks, dave souza, talk 18:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Catastrophism


text:
User:Cyp

Written by me:

 * Maybe some other things I've forgotten...
 * Number-theoretic transform
 * List of mathematical shapes (incomplete)
 * Lava lamp
 * Four-vector, Four-etc...
 * Bezier triangle, da:Béziertrekant
 * University of Copenhagen
 * Keyboard layout (mainly images)
 * Inverse (disambiguation)
 * Elastic (stub)
 * A few redirects

Managed to track myself down:

Gone to Brazil, was back in September. Hey cyps I hope you are back. I just need your ingenuity. Maybe we can team up.

Old Polyhedra:
 * Regular: [[image:tetrahedron.png|150px]] [[image:hexahedron.png|150px]] [[image:octahedron.png|150px]] [[image:dodecahedron.png|150px]] [[image:icosahedron.png|150px]]

 * Hybrid: [[image:cuboctahedron.png|150px]] [[image:icosidodecahedron.png|150px]]

 * Mutant: [[image:truncated tetrahedron.png|150px]] [[image:truncated hexahedron.png|150px]] [[image:truncated octahedron.png|150px]] [[image:truncated dodecahedron.png|150px]] [[image:truncated icosahedron.png|150px]]

 * Slightly odd: [[image:small rhombicuboctahedron.png|150px]] [[image:great rhombicuboctahedron.png|150px]] [[image:small rhombicosidodecahedron.png|150px]] [[image:great rhombicosidodecahedron.png|150px]]

 * Just plain weird: [[image:Snub hexahedron.png|150px]] [[image:snub hexahedron ccw.png|150px]] [[image:Snub dodecahedron cw.png|150px]] [[image:snub dodecahedron ccw.png|150px]]

Java for pretty pictures: Click here

New Polyhedra:
 * Regular: [[image:tetrahedron.jpg|64px|.]] [[image:hexahedron.jpg|74px|.]] [[image:octahedron.jpg|71px|.]] [[image:dodecahedron.jpg|85px|.]] [[image:icosahedron.jpg|82px|.]]

 * Hybrid: [[image:cuboctahedron.jpg|82px|.]] [[image:icosidodecahedron.jpg|84px|.]]

 * Mutant: [[image:truncatedtetrahedron.jpg|87px|.]] [[image:truncatedhexahedron.jpg|82px|.]] [[image:truncatedoctahedron.jpg|86px|.]] [[image:truncateddodecahedron.jpg|88px|.]] [[image:truncatedicosahedron.jpg|88px|.]]

 * Slightly odd: [[image:rhombicuboctahedron.jpg|82px|.]] [[image:truncatedcuboctahedron.jpg|86px|.]] [[image:rhombicosidodecahedron.jpg|86px|.]] [[image:truncatedicosidodecahedron.jpg|87px|.]]

 * Just plain weird: [[image:snubhexahedronccw.jpg|84px|.]] [[image:snubhexahedroncw.jpg|84px|.]] [[image:snubdodecahedronccw.jpg|85px|.]] [[image:snubdodecahedroncw.jpg|87px|.]]

 * Strange: [[image:rhombicdodecahedron.jpg|85px|.]] [[image:rhombictriacontahedron.jpg|86px|.]]

 * Exploded: [[image:triakistetrahedron.jpg|68px|.]] [[image:triakisoctahedron.jpg|68px|.]] [[image:tetrakishexahedron.jpg|77px|.]] [[image:triakisicosahedron.jpg|82px|.]] [[image:pentakisdodecahedron.jpg|84px|.]]

 * Confused: [[image:deltoidalicositetrahedron.jpg|85px|.]] [[image:disdyakisdodecahedron.jpg|77px|.]] [[image:deltoidalhexecontahedron.jpg|85px|.]] [[image:disdyakistriacontahedron.jpg|81px|.]]

 * Insane: [[image:pentagonalicositetrahedronccw.jpg|83px|.]] [[image:pentagonalicositetrahedroncw.jpg|82px|.]] [[image:pentagonalhexecontahedronccw.jpg|83px|.]] [[image:pentagonalhexecontahedroncw.jpg|85px|.]]

'' Oh, great almighty Windows, we shall never worship any false idols! Amen.  This sentence was posted via Konqueror on my new Linux partition!'' (Ok, my second-largest hard drive still has Windows, but anyway...)

?

da:Bruger:Cyp nl:Gebruiker:Cyp

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Cyp


text:
Bo Lundgren

Bo Axel Magnus Lundgren (born 11 July 1947) is a Swedish politician who served as the leader of the Moderate Party from 1999 to 2003. Lundgren also served as Minister for Sports from 1991 to 1994 and Director-General of the Swedish National Debt Office from 2004 to 2013.

Lundgren served as Minister for Fiscal and Financial Affairs from 1991 to 1994 in the government of Carl Bildt, with responsibility mainly for financial markets, taxation and housing. The country faced a severe financial crisis after the bursting of a speculation bubble which had developed in the 1980s. The Swedish government's management of the crisis attracted international attention, especially after the late 2000s recession. Lundgren testified to the US Congressional Oversight Panel in 2009 and was also called to the European Parliament and the Irish Parliament to speak about management of financial crises.

Early life, education, and personal life
Bo Lundgren was born in Kristianstad to Alf Lundgren (1913-1985) and Inez Nilsson (1918-2003). He earned a degree in business and administration from Lund University in 1972, and began training as a Reserve Officer in the Swedish Army. He served from 1972 to 1978, and reached the rank of Captain.

Lundgren received an honorary doctorate from Lund University in 2010. He resides in Lund with his wife and two children.

Political career
Lundgren first became active in politics by becoming a board member of the Moderate Party's county association in Kristianstad in 1969, and later became leader of the Moderate Youth League in Kristianstad from 1971–1974. He became a member of the Riksdag in 1976, representing his home constituency of Skåne Northern and Eastern.

Lundgren later served as Minister for Sports under Prime minister Carl Bildt from 1991 to 1994.

Leader of the Moderate Party
In 1999, he succeeded Bildt as party leader and became leader of the opposition. He brought the party into the 2002 Swedish general election, becoming the coalitions candidate for Prime Minister.

During the elections, Lundgren was perceived to be a technocratic politician who put too much emphasis on budget numbers and tax cuts, which might have contributed to the party's poor showing that year. He was criticised for promising to cut taxes by 130 billion Swedish kronor, a vision that according to his opponents might have jeopardised the welfare state, although the number seems to have been calculated by political opponents.

He resigned one year later after the party's poor results in 2002. He was succeeded by Fredrik Reinfeldt, who helped move the party to the political centre during Lundgrens time as leader.

Career after politics
Lundgren served as director general of the Swedish National Debt Office (Riksgäldskontoret) from 2004 to 2013. He played a further role in the government's response to the late 2000s recession, along with Stefan Ingves the head of Sveriges Riksbank, which included the nationalisation of Carnegie Investment Bank. After leaving the Debt Office, he was appointed chairman of Sparbanken Öresund as well as of some other institutions.

Lundgren is still respected among many Moderates for his principled stand on issues as a leader, especially since Fredrik Reinfeldt has been pursuing more centrist policies.

Currently, he is on the advisory board of OMFIF where he is regularly involved in meetings regarding the financial and monetary system.

title: Bo Lundgren


text:
User:Koyaanis Qatsi/flowers for spirit

I just picked a couple of them, resized/crop (unfortunate camera date), and used a little bit the curves and levels options...

Some miss the bottom, others had the wrong light, or the wrong angle, but, basically, I think they are not bad...what do you think ?

Yes, with a digital camera I'll put the rhodo on my page. I like them a lot. It snowed the whole day long here. White perfect :-) My best

Astilberose

Cosmos tubulaires

Echinops

Rhododendron

Budbeckia

Muscaris

[[media:Astilberose.JPG]] Astilberose

[[media:Cosmos_tubulaire.jpg]] Cosmos tubulaires

[[media:Echinops.jpg]] Echinops

[[media:RhodoP.jpg]] Rhododendron

[[media:Rudbeckia_2002.jpg]] Budbeckia

[[media:Muscaris-2.JPG]] Muscaris

title: User:Koyaanis Qatsi/flowers for spirit


text:
User talk:Cyp

Archiving?
Hi Cyp and Happy New Year. Now that you've returned to adminship do you think you could do some archiving on this talk page, to reduce it to a manageable size? The Talk page guidelines recommend archiving when the talk page exceeds 75kB, and this one is 135 kB and goes back 13 years. Thanks Noyster (talk),  23:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess it's probably not too soon to do an archive… Κσυπ Cyp  09:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

To err is human
Hello Cyp. Can you explain your deletion of that article per A3? It was a soft redirect and was created using the appropriate template for such. It did not qualify for a speedy or any other deletion since we having pages like that is very normal. I would appreciate if you can restore it. Best, —  Yash talk  stalk 05:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Yes, sorry, it's because I didn't realise it was actually a redirect. I somehow missed in the preview that adds a redirect box. I've restored it now. Κσυπ Cyp   09:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Cyp. I just realized that you returned to active editing after a long time. Welcome back - it is always great to see positive editors like you returning back to the project. I hope you have fun! :) —  Yash talk  stalk 11:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's good to be back. ☺ Κσυπ Cyp  13:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
 * Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news
 * When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
 * Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
 * The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries
 * JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Victor Ike
Hi! Cyp, Please why exactly was Victor Ike article i wrote deleted? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracy Williams (talk • contribs) 12:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Because it was recently voted to be deleted at Articles for deletion/Victor Ike. If you think it shouldn't have been deleted, you can ask at Deletion review – please don't just recreate it repeatedly. Κσυπ Cyp  13:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Use of golden spiral image
Hello, Cyp

I was wondering if you would allow me and the college at which I work to use (without attribution) your fine image of the golden spiral appearing on W? Every year we run a math contest for secondary school students, and one of the perks we give them is a custom designed t-shirt with a mathematical image and a quote from a famous mathematician. I think your image of the golden spiral might be appropriate for this purpose.

The contest is completely non-profit, and only about 60 t-shirts are printed. The reason I would prefer to do it without attribution is that it kind of ruins a t-shirt to have copyright symbols and text on the shirt (unless I can place it along the bottom of the back edge).

Thanks for your consideration of my request, and, of course, I understand completely if the answer is no.

Nicholas Buck Instructor of Mathematics College of New Caledonia Prince George, BC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliotra (talk • contribs) 15:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

 * That sounds fine with me. I'm not sure how well thin bright-coloured lines would be printed on dark backgrounds (if printing on t-shirts is anything like printing on regular paper with a cheap printer), so you might want to consider lightening the background colours, in case – the t-shirt-printing place should know whether that's required, though. Κσυπ Cyp  16:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi!
Hello there, I hope you are doing great! The page Talk:PieShell was deleted under A3 CSD criteria, but it does not fall under it. See this discussion that we had at the teahouse. Thank you. Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Cyp
Plz if you can help me nominating for admin on wiki.

Reagrds , — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggarwal1981 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't feel comfortable nominating you for adminship at this time. For a higher chance of success, it might help to have a higher ratio of contributions to deleted contributions. Κσυπ Cyp  10:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

LOL just the right amount of humor for my night :) Legacypac (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Please revoke this IP from editing their talk page as this IP is still vandalising their talk page even after being blocked. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks, did it just as you were posting your comment, don't know who was faster. Κσυπ Cyp  16:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Sanjay Rungta Group of Institutions
Previously i was created an article named Sanjay Rungta Group of Institutions which is a group of educational institutions located in Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, India. This article should be published because people are confused with similar names of institutions such as Rungta Group Of Institutions both are different groups of educational institutions but are considered as same, so to solve the confusion i want to publish Sanjay Rungta Group of Institutions with a strong source and all the bugs fixed. Sanjay Rungta Group of Institutions is popularly known as Rungta Group of Colleges. sources http://www.rungtacolleges.com/the-gdr-society.php (for name Sanjay Rungta Group of Institutions). This group owns 4 (four) degree college which are - RSR Rungta College of Engineering and Technology, GD Rungta College of Engineering & Technology, Rungta College of Dental Sciences & Research, Rungta College of Science & Technology which are located in same place at same campus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumitsharaf (talk • contribs)

 * Note that it wasn't me that deleted Rungta Group of Colleges, and Sanjay Rungta Group of Institutions was just a redirect to it. I deleted the redirect, since there's no point redirecting to a deleted article. RHaworth deleted Rungta Group of Colleges due to it not being notable enough. I haven't looked into the actual article, so I don't know whether it should qualify as being notable. Κσυπ Cyp  12:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

 * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

 * Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Use of some of your polyhedra figures
Hi Cyp! Thanks a lot for creating all those fantastic figures! I wanted to use some of them (and they are licensed by Creative Commons), but there I had one problem: Some of the figures were uploaded by other users (like Hellisp or André Kjell). So how is it with the license, should I still name you or the other users? Thank you in advance for an answer and I wish you nice holidays!! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malvi90 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I think linking to the original images is usually considered sufficient, and probably easier than figuring out who did exactly what. Nice holidays to you, too! Κσυπ Cyp  17:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

142.40.135.244
Question: did you happen to see my request on IRC regarding 142.40.135.244? Thanks for blocking 142.40.135.244. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

 * No, you might have messaged another Cyp on IRC. I revoked TPA, though. Κσυπ Cyp  09:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

 * Just curious. I had added an AIV report for the anon, didn't get any response, then went to the admin IRC channel. Seems like when nobody's watching AIV, nobody's watching IRC. I've gotten chastised a few times for not using IRC instead of repeatedly reverting an LTA. But, the five or six times I've used IRC when AIV has been backlogged, it's never helped. Thanks for your reply. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like we have a similar spam-bot - Special:Contributions/45.122.138.58 - adding talk pages in Korean to articles that don't exist. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops. Cancel that. Special:Contributions/119.206.249.167 was the adding talk pages in Korean to articles that don't exist was the spambot you blocked. Special:Contributions/142.40.135.244 unrelated. I got that wrong. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

 * Yes, 119.206.249.167 and 45.122.138.58 look the same. If you come across similar spambots in the future, you can use Special:Nuke/45.122.138.58 instead of deleting each page individually. Κσυπ Cyp  10:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Test filter in disallow
If we want to enable any actions then I think we should use a dedicated filter with a descriptive title. This makes for easier tracking, as seeing "Test filter" in the logs doesn't tell us much, and it would be hard to determine what version of the filter disallowed the edit. Regards, — MusikAnimal  talk  22:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

 * Ok, sorry – I've moved it to its own filter now. Κσυπ Cyp  07:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

YouTube/Mathologer use of polyhedron animation
Hi Cyp - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rhombicdodecahedron.gif shows up in Mathologer video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEhLNS5AHss at 8:10. I don't know whether he/they asked you for permission to use it without attribution or whether the attribution is well hidden. Andrew Kepert (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

 * Thanks for mentioning. I don't think I gave them permission to use them without attribution. They give attribution for lots of stuff though, so I'm guessing it's left out by accident. Κσυπ Cyp   14:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked
Whoops I misused the template. It should have been. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's fine – glad I'm not blocked. It looked to me like Sunasuttuq was commenting that Cyp and CambridgeBayWeather were blocked by Uqaqtuq, so I got a bit confused. Κσυπ Cyp  06:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Question
Would it be alright if I continued to make Joe Walz edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:57 (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Use of Polyhedra images for a thesis
Hi Cyp, thank you for your nice polyhedra pictures! I would like to include them in my thesis. I would insert the following footnote on the pages containing your pictures:

Picture made by Wiki User Cyp using POV-Ray. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Is there another expression that I should include? Shall I include you full name? If so, what is it?

Thank you in advance,

Viviana — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.159.67.44 (talk) 09:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 * That's fine. It might be better to say Wikipedia than wiki, since there are many wikis and only one Wikipedia (not counting mirrors). Κσυπ Cyp  10:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 * Great, thanks a lot! Viviana 131.159.67.44 (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

73.16.107.72
I think needs their talk page access reviewed per  Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Faster than I! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you had removed talk page privileges. The anon is again adding personal attacks/abuse. Jim1138 (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. I wasn't fast revoking TPA, I was just slow adding the block notice. Κσυπ Cyp  08:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

About filter syntax
Hi, I noticed this filter change by chance, together with some perplexity regarding filter maths. Since the filter is private I won't expose too much details here, so sorry for being a little cryptic. The "problem" here is that a while ago we changed the way integers are handled (see T191688). Those changes especially affected comparisons using  and , except for  , which is now a float when it needs to be. So yeah, the rounding isn't in place anymore.-- Daimona Eaytoy  (Talk)  22:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks, that explains it. Was wondering if something had changed, or if it had actually never worked in the first place. Κσυπ Cyp  10:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

J Walz troll
Thanks for blocking the J Walz troll at. I realize this is a tough troll to deal with due to the dynamic IP. Would you be willing to implement a temporary range block that would also include, , , , and , which have also been active over the last couple of weeks? Thanks. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've done a short rangeblock for now. Since not all edits from that range are bad, I think another solution may be needed longer term, if they don't stop. Κσυπ Cyp  06:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the GIFs
I love the spinning Octahedrons, so thank you for those, I gave creds to you on my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamkasai (talk • contribs) 18:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Filter 883
Filter 883 currently does not do any actions, and only has 16 hits over ~14 months. With one false positive the highest setting possible would be warn, and I don't see any vandal determined enough to get autoconfirmed being stopped by a warning, and there are very few hits anyhow. So I'm thinking of disabling it - any objections? Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Since it's not even currently set to do anything, I guess there's no harm in disabling it — I've disabled it, now. Κσυπ Cyp  08:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and letting you know I disabled Filter 897 since the spambot appears to have stopped (or completely changed behaviour, at-least), and there were a couple of somewhat good-faith edits caught like Special:AbuseLog/20700242. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Rhombicdodecahedron was nominated for deletion
Hello there, it seems like someone thinks the https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rhombicdodecahedron.jpg should be deleted just because there is a gif version. This doesn't make any sense for me, if you can help on voting to keep would be nice.

Also, is it possible to generate SVG versions with POLY ray ? I've never used such program and I am not familiar with the coding provided. Many thanks for your contribution. --Cyberpunk (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

 * I don't think there's any chance of it getting deleted (or even of anyone voting to delete), and even if a majority suddenly voted to delete, it's supposed to be based on reasoning rather than number of votes, so I think more votes are probably redundant now.

 * POV-ray is a raytracer, so I think there's no way it would be able to generate SVGs. I think it might be possible to make SVGs that look similar enough though, but haven't tried. Κσυπ Cyp  18:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

¬ listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ¬. Since you had some involvement with the ¬ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – MJL  ‐Talk‐☖ 22:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit filter results review
Can you look at [:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism/TB2#Bot-reported] and let me know if is part of the pattern you were actually targeting, or just an accidental false positive? Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

 * My guess is a false positive in that case. I think anything with position:absolute is usually trying to mess with the site layout, so I think the few false positives on that one are considered acceptable. Κσυπ Cyp  12:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

lol
.... but then again, given that both logic analyzers and programming compilers can be associated with those numbers, AND you do seem to be quite adept at math ... I'm just never quite sure when it comes to humor. — Ched : ?    —  12:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

 * They're 65536 = 2¹⁶ and 43046721 = 3¹⁶, which are common because they're the number of 16-bit numbers and the number of 16-trit numbers. Κσυπ Cyp  08:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Serbs of Croatia
Could you please deal with the edit war at Serbs of Croatia? CLCStudent (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't usually deal with edit wars, but the edit history over there looked a bit excessive… Hope I dealt with it right. Κσυπ Cyp  14:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't the bot do this?
Agreed, it should, but it doesn't. I've meant to complain before, but I don't know where. Bishonen | talk 08:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC).
 * I'm not sure, but the bot's talk page redirects to 's talk page, so maybe he knows about it. Κσυπ Cyp  08:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Your polyhedra are amazing. thank you for making so many and maintaining a consistent style. its really helpful

Masoclove (talk) 04:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Please adjust page protection
Please adjust the page protection settings on the following pages. As discussed at there is clear community consensus that ECP should not apply for "high risk templates" and nothing under WP:ECP supports such protection to this/these template(s) (example: "by request" is insufficient).

 * Template:Citation not found

Thank you. Buffs (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've reduced it to “Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access”. I hope that was the right setting. Κσυπ Cyp  18:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds great! Thanks! Buffs (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Quartic equation moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Quartic equation, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Interstellarity (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

What problem is this application of simulated annealing trying to solve?
Hello, I was reading about simulated annealing on its Wikipedia page, and was drawn to the example you added (according to the ) illustrating the annealing schedule. I am drawn to this particular problem – that of rearranging pixels using this algorithm – for its connections to crystal formation, but I am finding it impossible to find a starting point to learn more about it on the internet. Thus I was wondering what this particular problem is called or the greater context it belongs in. I'd love to play around with its implementation. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreatmochi (talk • contribs) 21:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

 * This particular example is just an image starting with randomly coloured pixels and then swapping them in order to minimise a potential function which favours similar colours at short range and varying colours at medium range. Mainly just to generate pretty pictures, although the result happens to looks like a crystal or amorphous solid depending on annealing speed. I imagine a potential function for realistic crystal formation would be a bit more complicated (requiring at least some approximation of quantum mechanics), and probably involve at least the coordinates of the atoms in the crystal, rather than an arbitrary continuous field of colour. Κσυπ Cyp  19:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

"Us (verson 2)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Us (verson 2). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 29 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Draft:Theranostics pages deletion
Hi Cyp Sir, I would like to submit an independent page on theranostics. While searching, I found you deleted the draft entitled theranostics. Can you please tell me the reason? Is it something about the notability, if so there is no meaning to create a new article. I think it is fast-growing research, so there should be an independent page on the topic. Kindly let me know whether to continue or not. I am attaching the details of the deletion log.

19:01, 22 August 2017 Cyp talk contribs deleted page Draft:Theranostics (G7: One author who has requested deletion – If you wish to retrieve it, please see

By seeing the log details it appears as an automatic deletion, that happened because no edits happened in the draft, even after six months of period. I am just a new user, so I could not get even more details about it. So kindly provide if you can provide.

If you have any suggestions regarding this topic please let me know.

I don't want the old deleted page. I would like to start it as new.

Thanking you Rahulsoman (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Hi, the reason was that the article's author asked for it to be deleted. I don't know why the author asked for it to be deleted. Sometimes authors ask for deletion after being told something isn't notable, or it could also be that they changed their mind about finishing it, or some other reason, but I don't know what the case here.
 * If someone asks for their page to be deleted, someone else may still create a page on the same topic (assuming there aren't any other reasons why not). Κσυπ Cyp  11:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Hi Cyp Sir Thnks for your reply. I just started working on it, wanted to know whether the topic is having any notability issue. thank you Rahulsoman (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

"GREEK OLD CALENDARISTS" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect GREEK OLD CALENDARISTS. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 10 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 05:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

File:Poly.pov listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Poly.pov, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. --Trialpears (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Twenty Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Twenty Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for twenty years or more.

Best regards, Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

"Internet Exploiter" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_Exploiter&redirect=no Internet Exploiter] and it has been listed for discussion. Anyone, including you, is welcome to participate at until a consensus is reached. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder
This is a reminder that established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

 * 🎉 Cyp  11:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Could I use your images in a paper?
Dear Cyp,

I'm writing a math paper and would love to use some of your iconic polyhedra diagrams (with attribution) in a figure. I intend to submit this paper to a mathematics journal for publication when it's done. Please let me know if this is alright with you. I'll understand either way.

Best, Ewyman (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Sure, that's fine with me. In general, if you click on “View author information” for an image, if there's a section that says “This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Subject to disclaimers.” or similar, then permission is already given. Cyp  14:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Cool 3d shapes
I like how you labeled them. They’re SO cool! 😎 72.193.153.70 (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Green polyhedra should be PNG
Hi Cyp. Back in 2005 people have rendered your polyhedra as JPGs with white background (like File:Icosidodecahedron.jpg). Could you render them again as PNGs with transparent background? People keep replacing them with ugly vectorizations (like File:Icosidodecahedron.svg). The one point they have is, that this is a way to get rid of the white backgrounds. And you can render them much bigger. These days a width of 4000px is just fine. Watchduck (quack) 18:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cyp


text:
Hartree

The hartree (symbol: Eh), also known as the Hartree energy, is the unit of energy in the atomic units system, named after the British physicist Douglas Hartree. Its CODATA recommended value is =

The hartree is approximately the negative electric potential energy of the electron in a hydrogen atom in its ground state and, by the virial theorem, approximately twice its ionization energy; the relationships are not exact because of the finite mass of the nucleus of the hydrogen atom and relativistic corrections.

The hartree is usually used as a unit of energy in atomic physics and computational chemistry: for experimental measurements at the atomic scale, the electronvolt (eV) or the reciprocal centimetre (cm−1) are much more widely used.

Other relationships

 * $$E_\mathrm{h} = {\hbar^2 \over {m_\mathrm{e} a^2_0}} = m_\mathrm{e}\left(\frac{e^2}{4\pi\varepsilon_0\hbar}\right)^2 = m_\mathrm{e} c^2 \alpha^2 = {\hbar c \alpha \over {a_0}} $$
 * = 2 Ry = 2 R∞hc

where:
 * ħ is the reduced Planck constant,
 * me is the electron mass,
 * e is the elementary charge,
 * a0 is the Bohr radius,
 * ε0 is the electric constant,
 * c is the speed of light in vacuum, and
 * α is the fine-structure constant.

Effective hartree units are used in semiconductor physics where $$e^2$$ is replaced by $$e^2/\varepsilon$$ and $$\varepsilon $$ is the static dielectric constant. Also, the electron mass is replaced by the effective band mass $$m^*$$. The effective hartree in semiconductors becomes small enough to be measured in millielectronvolts (meV).

title: Hartree