User talk:David spector

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page–my talk page–as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Thank you!

Click here to leave me a new message.

Click here to watch this page.

Bacterophages

is it true that bacteriophage T2 affects other bacterias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.24.127.211 (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word "bacteriophage" means "bacterium eater", but they don't actually eat bacteria. Bacteriophages are viruses that replicate by injecting their genetic contents into a bacterium. Their DNA takes over the genetic mechanisms of the bacterium, replicating new virus bodies until the bacterium is destroyed and bursts open. David Spector (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Seneca (cigarette)

I can't understand (from Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion) what an ordinary editor (as opposed to an administrator) should do to request a Speedy deletion of Seneca (cigarette) by reason A7. David Spector (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the CSD page - the A7 section at the end there is a bullet and a list of templates, decide on the appropriate one. Go to the article, select edit and add the template at the top of the page like {{db-a7}} - don't forget the double braces each end. Click save. The new boxed notice will show a string of text to copy and paste onto the original authors talk page.

OR enable Twinkle in the Gadgets section of your preferences. Then you get a extra menu item - CSD - it adds the tag to the article and adds the right tag to the correct talk page. Much easier. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Done. The original author has no user or talk page. David Spector (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page comments

Hi David, Please be aware that accusing individuals or groups of editors of WP:OWN, wiki-lawyering, editing with POV etc. and/or labeling them as pro-TM, anti-TM, skeptics etc.[1] is not helpful to progress on Wikipedia and may be in violation of TM ArbCom and/or other Wikipedia policies. If you feel that a particular editor's behavior is in violation of Wikipedia policy then I suggest that you start a thread at WP:AE or WP:ANI as these are the appropriate places for discussions of editor behavior. Thanks for your careful consideration in this matter. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keithbob, I appreciate your concerned comments, however they do not seem to me to be relevant.

First, since I am not interested in Wikilawyering myself, I cannot take your advice to complain about any particular editor's behavior as in violation of policies. Such a complaint, accompanied by a list of edit differences, is just the sort of time wastage that, although frequent at WP, does not interest me. I like actual article editing.

Second, I do not believe that any specific editors have shown clear violations of WP policies. If they had, they would already be under attack by the others. I'm talking about clear trends that turn up on a group level (these aren't individual POVs, but distinct and unique sides in a set if controversies).

Third, the observations I'm making are not complaints, in the sense you mean them. My complaint is that the TM articles are written as exposes of controversy instead of sources of information. If someone really wants to develop their own judgement of the value of TM, they would find the task difficult based on what's currently here.

Fourth, as part of my explanation of why the articles are so bad, I've explained the reality, which may not be obvious to the first-time visitor: the same editors have been present here for years, and they have a pattern of "welcoming" then giving advice to new editors (this approaches but does not reach OWN). I've explained that these long-term editors fall into two consistent groups: a pro- group and an anti- group.

Fifth, these are group descriptions, not those of individuals. If you would like to accuse any individuals of violations, don't ask me to to do it. Be BOLD and do it yourself. I stand behind my proposal fully, and I hope someone will come along and see the value in it.

Sixth, I disagree most definitely that my proposal is "not helpful to progress on WP." Hiding the truth is never helpful, in any area of human life. Telling the truth about the dysfunctional editing environment at the TM articles, as I have done, may be the first step toward finding a way to rewrite these articles to make them as readable and genuinely informative as certain other controversial articles at WP. Accepting the status quo as you seem to be recommending deserves this label you are putting on me: "not helpful to progress on WP." You have learned well from others here that you can frequently win arguments at WP or get your way by using WP policies as weapons with which to make threats. Regardless of whether this strategy works or not, I do not consider it kind to others, supportive of others, or in the best interest of writing good articles. David Spector (user/talk) 19:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, Thanks for your reply, but I did not say: "[your] proposal is not helpful to progress on WP". What I said (above) was: "Please be aware that accusing individuals or groups of editors of WP:OWN, wiki-lawyering, editing with POV etc. and/or labeling them as pro-TM, anti-TM, skeptics etc.[2] is not helpful to progress on Wikipedia and may be in violation of TM ArbCom and/or other Wikipedia policies." I made no comment about your proposal. I am speaking strictly about behavior. You may disregard my post if you like, but please don't put words in my mouth. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I don't understand what distinction you are making. Is it possible that you could address my proposal instead of your interpretation that I'm making complaints? David Spector (user/talk) 01:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you're unable to understand that its possible to discuss content issues on the talk page without "accusing individuals or groups of editors of WP:OWN, wiki-lawyering, editing with POV etc. and/or labeling them as pro-TM, anti-TM, skeptics". I would suggest taking a break and thinking it over. Also, I have never said you were "making complaints". What I said was:"Please be aware that accusing individuals or groups of editors of WP:OWN, wiki-lawyering, editing with POV etc. and/or labeling them as pro-TM, anti-TM, skeptics etc.[3] is not helpful to progress on Wikipedia and may be in violation of TM ArbCom and/or other Wikipedia policies." This repeated mis-characterization of my statements is a concern. As for your proposal, I've already given you feedback (twice) on the TM talk page and offered specific suggestions as to how you might proceed. Maybe you should take time to read those again too, when you have a chance. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is possible to use Talk pages in other ways. I do that all the time. But the TM pages are different from most in that the articles are marked by an almost unreadable fluctuation between pro-TM and anti-TM points of view. That is why I worded my proposal the way I did, emphasizing the history and reality of the editing environment there.

You say, "I've already given you feedback (twice)..." But this feedback did not include an "agree" or "disagree", with reasons. Instead, it focused on my statements concerning the unproductive editing environment at these articles.

I assume that you agree with me that our goal here is to create high-quality articles. I assume that you are not attacking me (I can't see that you would have any motivation to do so). So it is of greatest concern to me that you appear to focus on WP policy rather than either my proposal or the readability of the articles in general.

My greatest concern is that you seem to be upset about something in particular, repeating yourself and seeming to be trying to warn me about something, asking me to reread what you've written. For some reason, though, I'm not understanding your point. Please don't get impatient with me. Please explain what you mean using other words, so that I can understand your warning and see clearly how it contributes to this discussion and to the improvement of the article. David Spector (user/talk) 12:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My greatest concern is that you seem to be upset that I am giving you a friendly heads up that your talk page activities may be in violation of discretionary sanctions. Since you have already received a formal warning at WP:AE for similar behavior [4] I thought you might appreciate this kind an alert. But instead you have choosen to twist my words and claim I'm saying something I'm not. That's why I have quoted my prior posts because they are very clear and explicit and include diffs. You are an intelligent man and you have the ability to understand them. If you need further information please see TM ArbCom and WP:AGF and WP:TALK.

I have addressed your proposal and given a detailed response on two occasions on the TM talk page. Your response to my first post included the accusation "Your reply is just another example of the pervasive habit of wikilawyering." My second response I placed in a special section heading, two days ago, to encourage other editors to also give their comments. In addition, I expressed my opinions on your proposal, cited a Wiki essay, and gave specific suggestions for steps you could take to obtain further input from other editors and gain consensus. Please don't make me out to be the bad guy as, so far, I am the only one who has responded to you on the talk page. And yes, our goals are the same: to create and maintain high-quality articles on Wikipedia and I'm sure we can work together to achieve that goal. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have been so dense. You really are completely ignoring my proposal that we rewrite the articles, aren't you? All you are doing is giving me a friendly warning, in case I myself may be violating WP policies. Please accept my apology for trying to force you to respond to the proposal itself. Of course, you are free to do as you like, and I have no right to put any words in your mouth. Are we okay now? I will also reply at the TM talk page. Thanks for your concern. David Spector (user/talk) 13:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Beached dolphins

A tag has been placed on Beached dolphins, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Moreover, please add more verifiable sources, not only 3rd party sources. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. A:-)Brunuś (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the page Beached dolphins, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition was deleted under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text—which means allowing other people to modify it—then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License." You may also e-mail or mail the Foundation to release the content. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more.

While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pigs on lnh

hy david, can we talk about people running wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.27.12.81 (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you like. Send me an email through WP. If that doesn't work, you can write here. Sign your postings by ending them with four tildes. What is "lnh"? David Spector (user/talk) 13:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear David,

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

Best regards, — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you, I accept. Editing here is usually a fulfilling and enjoyable activity. Sometimes, it can be frustrating, as the guidelines require certain kinds of published sources when sometimes there are none such to be had on apparently notable topics. Another reason for frustration is the difficulty of dealing with opinion conflicts between editors. Rarely, editing can be traumatic--it can require a thick skin--many sensitive folk have left WP when such frustrations reached overwhelming proportions. David Spector (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New User Template

This user is a member of the
Wiki Project on Transcendental Meditation.

Hi, I am notifying all editors who are listed as participants at the Transcendental Meditation project page to let them know they may add this newly created project user template (see image at left) to their user page by adding the following code: {{User WPTranscendental Meditation}} to their page, if they so desire. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Williams Talk Page

Hello. As an individual who's contributed to the talk page here in previous discussions, I would like to request your participation in two current discussions, Whitney Houston 2003 Interview and Kim on Wendy Williams & Rapper Biggie Smalls. Your contributions, which are not contingent upon taking any particular side, would be appreciated. Silver Buizel (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for the invitation. David Spector (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to each of the discussions. Your feedback allowed the discussion to progress in a more cohesive manner and helped establish a sense of consensus. Silver Buizel (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Williams Talk Page II

Hello. As an individual who's contributed to the discussion of this talk page, I would like to request your participation in several ongoing discussions: Nicole Spence Section, Williams & Rachel Crow, Williams and Janet Hubert feud, Williams and Beyoncé Knowles, Adorn by Wendy Williams section and "In Popular Culture" Section. Your contributions, which are not contingent upon taking any particular side, would be appreciated. Silver Buizel (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry, but as my time is currently limited and the topic of this article is probably near the very bottom of what qualifies to appear in WP, I must regretfully deny your invitation. David Spector (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No more hunting for Helen

Voila: Helen Hunt (hair stylist). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! What a great article, thanks! David Spector (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Downwind

Hi, Could you give me a link to the explanation that was in Wikipedia about how it is possible to sail faster than the wind when going downwind? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself contains one explanation. The following is from my new policy proposal, pointing to another explanation on its Talk page:

"An example is Sailing faster than the wind, where section "BOLD EDIT NOTICE" of its Talk page presents an excellent explanation (the analogy of a geared transmission)..."

David Spector (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop, Look and Listen

Hi. If that other film is notable, then please create an article for it, instead of adding pointless info to another article. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks, David Spector (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The new article is done: Stop Look and Listen (film). Your help in locating any errors would be appreciated. David Spector (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leap Motion page

Hey David, my name is Alex Colgan and I’m the head writer at Leap Motion. I saw that you made some edits to the Leap Motion page last year, and was wondering whether you'd be interested in helping to expand it.

I’m fully on board with Wikipedia’s contributions guidelines, including those related to conflict of interest. This means that I won’t make any direct edits to the page. Instead, I'd like to suggest changes and contribute references as needed, so that impartial Wikipedians can make contributions that will improve the article while maintaining NPOV ^_^

— Alex Colgan, head writer at Leap Motion 15:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, I see that you have asked me and Gandydancer to be fronts for feeding your edits into Wikipedia. You say, "I’m fully on board with Wikipedia’s contributions guidelines." Your request is not in compliance with WP policy. All I can say is that I will not cooperate, and I advise you not to try to get promotional material into Wikipedia through other editors or methods. WP editors are very smart, and will discover and promptly remove any such edits as they find them. WP is dedicated to providing objective and reliable knowledge. It will generally accept statements that are backed up by reliable, third-party sources such as reviews in magazines. I realize that as an employee of Leap Motion, you have unique knowledge about your company and its products, but, unfortunately for your company, WP only provides one channel for you to contribute such knowledge: to tell it to independent and trustworthy journalists in a position to check any facts you provide, who will then decide to publish the information in public. Further information is available at WP:RS. A final note: "single-use" accounts like this, concerned with only one article, are prohibited. I hope this information helps. PS - I wish Leap Motion luck; its technology is clever. But don't waste your time trying to use WP for publicity. It's against policy. David Spector (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not attempting to get anyone to be a "front" for feeding edits into Wikipedia, and I'm sorry that my original message has led to that impression. When I say "suggest changes," I do mean pointing to third-party materials and saying "this might be something that ought to be included." For instance, there has been fairly extensive media coverage of tech startup MotionSavvy [1] [2], which might merit a sentence in the "Developer Community" section. Ditto for the beta we announced earlier this year [3]. Conversely, I might point out something that ought to be cut, such as the CNET clause calling out a quote that isn't there.

Based on my reading into the COI, SPA, and Advocacy pages, I'm following policy by openly disclosing my affiliation, declining to make any direct edits, and offering to provide references in the form of third-party knowledge. I've principally based my disclosure on the plain and simple conflict of interest guide, which highlights CanalPark's disclosure as positive practice. (If there's something I'm missing, I hope you'll assume good faith rather than malice on my part.) At the very least, I don't think it's biased of me to say that there are significant quality issues on the page as it stands. — Alex Colgan, head writer at Leap Motion, 18:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, Thank you for your additional information and clarification. I agree that you are pursuing the correct course in your disclosures and disclaimers here.

The primary input to Wikipedia is third-party public and reliable sources. Our coverage of companies is not meant to be complete; there are other sources of information on the Web that should be used for in-depth information about commercial entities. Just as a WP editor is not allowed to be single-purpose (parked on one article, for example), I am certain that editors are not supposed to have any sort of 'favored status' with respect to a commercial entity. I apologize if this and other restrictions may not be obvious in a first reading of WP policy, and I will clarify that I am a general WP editor who is most definitely not interested in the 'favored status' relationship you are proposing. I am an occasional volunteer here with other responsibilities in life and cannot accept the responsibility to work with you as you proposed, even if this were in line with WP policy and goals, which it most definitely is not, in my opinion. WP may not be used to further external commercial goals, such as the posting of press releases or other marketing material. I state that even if that is not what you intend to do, only because it seems and feels that way to me. I wish you the best of luck. David Spector (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David, thanks for your candour and well-wishes. I feel that there's been an assumption of bad faith here, which is regrettable. I reached out to you after seeing that you'd previously edited the page because I thought you might be interested in returning to it, not to confer any kind of special status or impugn your integrity as an editor. My aim is to point out errors and omissions, based on reliable third-party sources, openly on the Talk page to be discussed and edited (and no doubt sometimes rejected) by the community at large; and it seemed like a good idea to say hello. All the best, — Alex Colgan, head writer at Leap Motion, 23:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At no time did I think you were guilty of the slightest bad faith. I've stated all my thoughts about this matter in my comments and omitted nothing. David Spector (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Omni-channel retailing

Why did you either recommend and/or delete the entry for omni channel retailing? I posted to that discussion yesterday and am hoping to get a response, but am new at making suggestions for Wikipedia so am following up on your talk page as well. Thanks.

M2sbdav (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a draft of a new entry for omni channel retailing, sorry for the delay, but have been slammed at work and with family obligations, so I am attaching it here for your review. Let me know your thoughts when convenient.

"Omni channel selling, whether B2B , B2C and/or B2B2C, has emerged in the last few years and is the logical evolution of multichannel selling which emerged ~20+ years ago when eCommerce surfaced in the mid 1990s and mCommerce, Mobile Commerce , a few years later. Multichannel selling is about selling through a variety of sales channels such as point of sale (PoS) in brick & mortar stores, telephone in a contact center, eCommerce, mCommerce, etc.

That being said, these sales channels are generally independent of one another so are not well integrated and as a result rarely provide a consistent customer experience. This is a key point and the primary differentiator between multi and omni channel selling. To keep the peace inside of companies, the eCommerce and mCommerce initiatives were usually kept separate from the traditional brick and mortar and possibly catalog/contact center business environment. This resulted in little, if any, formal integration between the different channels and the customer is usually the one impacted.

Omni channel selling will focus on the customer journey, how they arrive at a buying decision as well as making their purchase. Integrating the sales channels is starting to get more focus from companies as customers now often use more than one channel when making a purchase. For instance, online is heavily utilized to research the buying decision regardless of whether the purchase is made online, in store or through a contact center. Concepts like a 360 degree view of customer activities across sales channels have existed for a while, but its only recently that this is getting emphasized because companies are now realizing they are providing an inconsistent customer experience across sales channels.

And with Amazon and other eTailers delivering a vastly improved customer experience, companies have but no choice to play catch up. The impact of the pure play eTailers can’t be underestimated on the emergence of omni channel retailing because as sales keep migrating online, topping $300+ billion in 2014 in the US , existing companies have to stem the tide and knowing they aren’t going to become eTailers, effectively leveraging all of their sales channels to compete is their path forward.

Consider these scenarios which couldn’t have taken place until just a few years ago: • A customer browses and buys via a website on their lunch break, but rather than have to wait for their purchase to be shipped they pick it up in store as they drive by on their way home from work • A customer browsing on a website adds an article of clothing to their cart, but rather than buy they stop by the store to try the item on to make sure it fits first and as they enter the store their mobile device alerts a representative that they have just entered • A gift is ordered for someone via a contact center and delivered to the recipient where they decided it wasn’t a perfect fit so they went online, printed a return receipt and scheduled a pickup from a parcel company

These are but a few examples intended to highlight how quickly the customer experience and their expectations are changing. While the transition from multi to omni channel selling is just picking up steam, it’s the logical evolution for companies that expect to meet and exceed customer expectations. And given the eCommerce and mCommerce waves have arrived within the last 20 years, companies should expect shorter cycles for new technologies to emerge that can disrupt their business and how they engage with their customers so adapting to these new business models is worth considering."

There are 6 footnotes in the article, not displaying here, and below are some additional references:

• Customer Desires vs. Retailer Capabilities: Minding the Omni-Channel Commerce Gap (Accenture): http://www.accenture.com/us-en/Pages/insight-customer-capabilities-omni-channel-commerce-gap.aspx • On Solid Ground: Brick-and-Mortar is the Foundation of Omnichannel Retailing (AT Kearney): http://www.atkearney.com/consumer-products-retail/on-solid-ground • An Omni-Channel Pioneer Explains His Methods (Forbes): http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhigh/2014/10/27/an-omni-channel-pioneer-explains-his-methods/ • Why omnichannel retail is more than just a buzzword (Information Age): http://www.information-age.com/industry/uk-industry/123459054/why-omnichannel-retail-more-just-buzzword • 5 Excellent Examples of Omnichannel Retailing Done Right (Multichannel Merchant): http://multichannelmerchant.com/must-reads/5-excellent-examples-omnichannel-retailing-done-right-14052014/

M2sbdav (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M2sbdav, thank you for this work. I will read it when I have time (I'm currently in an intense project). One important note: be sure that none of your references are to blogs or other sites that are not well-known and trustworthy in your field. Also make sure that any acronyms or jargon have wikilinks or references which define them for people outside of your field. I will say more when I review what you have written above. If you are watching this page and have registered your email address, my comments will trigger a notice to you. David Spector (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David spector - thanks for the update. For some reason I didn't get a notice that you had responded, but wanted to give you some time so thought I would wait about a week. I had checked "Watch this page" previously and am checking it again so look forward to your feedback. M2sbdav (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'll give you some feedback on this short article when I have some time. You might do some research and find editors who edit often, for these people will have more time for you than I have available. There are many editors here who edit every day. You can easily evaluate the quality of their edits and find someone who not only knows about editing, but also knows something about marketing as a field of study, which I do not. Best of luck waiting for me or finding someone else, whichever you choose. David Spector (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David spector - I waited a week hoping you might get to this, but am going to post to omni channel retailing to see if someone else can edit it and provide feedback sooner. Thanks for your guidance. M2sbdav (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm usually good about providing feedback, but I'm spending every minute of free time making a new website for NSR, and this is really important to me. I've got to follow priorities. Best of luck. David Spector (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PSFS

Mr David I was one of the school children who regularly deposited money to PSFS. What happened to our deposits. Are they still gaining interests.

tyshirl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyshirl (talk • contribs) 21:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! I don't really know, but that's an interesting question. I haven't lived in Philadelphia for many years, and I imagine that PSFS is out of business by now, and your money is lost. I remember those savings books with a stamped line for each deposit. David Spector (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copy

[This refers to Let's Encrypt, section Principles] The text appears to be NC license per [5]. Thus I removed the text from https://letsencrypt.org/about/ Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Doc, for your initiative. I will see if I can get written permission for the quotation. David Spector (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your question about [[

I am not at all sure but the symbol may refer to a LaTEX command that opens mathmode.Dyerdave918 (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but I cannot recall ever having a question about such a symbol. I use it myself to bracket text that should be translated when creating multiple language translations of a website. Otherwise, I just cannot remember what I asked, or where. David Spector (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion on your userpage

Would you please remove the advertising content on your userpage, per WP:USERPAGE and WP:PROMO? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify which text or section you mean. I am not aware of having advertised or promoted on WP. David Spector (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Philadelphia High School for Girls

In 2017 you made a kind offer on the Talk:Philadelphia High School for Girls! Is there any chance you could go through and add a few references!! Just fifty or so maybe!! It looks like a place that should have a GA. ClemRutter (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make any offer, kind or otherwise!

Someone (not me) wrote the following:

"I think you should expand this topic a little more. I attend Girls High and if you have any info you want to know just ask me!"

I replied as follows:

"I don't know who you are, but go ahead and edit in whatever you wish. Just remember that since this is an encyclopedia, please provide a reliable source for each fact you contribute." David Spector (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Black hole question

If youre still interested, I think I got the answer: Talk:Stellar_black_hole#Missing:_estimate_of_tidal_force_on_human_body. A human standing at the edge of a stellar-mass black hole would feel a tidal force of about 100,000 g. —Soap— 04:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Action at a distance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Entanglement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

de Broglie-Bohm theory

Hi, I realize this isn't a question about editing Wikipedia, but I hope maybe you can answer it anyway since you seem to have familiarity with the subject. I'm copying it over from that talk page now:

I understand that in this theory, the wave function evolves on its own, and it creates forces which guide the particles. But if the particles themselves don't influence the wave function in return, how do they influence anything (measurements included)?

I hope it's clear what I'm asking. The theory seems to say "particles are guided by the waves". But if the particles and waves stick together, and we're to use this theory to understand anything about where they collectively go, wouldn't the particles have to guide the waves in return? I assume I've made an incorrect assumption about the claims of the theory, but I can't figure out what it is if so. I'd appreciate any help, and no rush. Student298 (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Any confusion is unnecessary, because Bohm deals with the particles in the double slit experiment just like any particle in classical mechanics that is affected by a force. It's that simple. So when a particle enters a slit, it enters just one slit, at some random position and velocity within a range determined by the experiment (apparatus cannot generate precisely accurate particles due to construction crudeness). It is not a wave that enters both slits at once. Once a particle enters the slit, it is guided by force field lines which can actually be visualized by an experiment. They have been published. "Guided" means they are pushed by the field lines and that they push back, according to all three of Newton's laws of motion. This can and has been measured by experiment and found to be consistent (doesn't mean it's proven as a law yet; it's still just an interpretation of QM).

The force field is defined in space and time by the Schrödinger wave function. So in the double-slit experiment, the wave function expresses the constraints due to the geometry of the experiment (two slits and a screen) perfectly (the wave function is not interpreted as the square root of a probability function). Consequently, the particles, even one by one, follow deterministically the trajectory completely specified by the wave function and the two initial conditions listed above. The result is an apparent wave-like probability pattern, even though nothing actually happens by random other than the location and velocity of each particle as it enters a slit.

I hope this clears everything up. David Spector (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

planthopper

I have just noticed your edit in 2013 asking if these exist. Can you explain your motivation for this comment. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Charles, I have looked up the 2013 version of this article. It contained in a Trivia section the following: "In Kenya, there is quite a beautiful flower-- rather like a hyacinth. If you should reach out to touch it, you would discover that the flower is not a flower at all, but a design made up of hundreds of tiny insects called flatid bugs. They escape the eyes of hungry birds by living and dying in the shape of a flower." This claim may have been fictitious and certainly lacked a reference, so I complained about it. The entire Trivia section has since been deleted. I have just edited my section and its title to explain this context clearly. Thanks for your good question. David Spector (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simple English Wikipedia

Hello, I was wondering if you could look at the Atom article on Simple English Wikipedia. It should be around the level that would be seen in an article like Introduction to quantum mechanics, but articles at that project try to use Basic English. It would be great if you could review the article to see if it's factually correct and reasonably comprehensive. See simple:Wikipedia:About for more info about that project. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't edited the Simple English Wikipedia, but in reading about it, I see that articles should contain the less than 900 words in [English]. Some of the words in the beginning of Atom are not in this list, such as 'type' and 'constituents'. Even the word I thought of as a substitute for 'constituents', 'parts', is not in that list. Before I go ahead and see if the article is factually correct, please let me know: is it okay that it uses longer and more complicated words than are in the Basic English list? David Spector (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay if some of the words are not on the list — otherwise we wouldn't be able to talk about "electromagnetic force" or "radioactivity" — but we try to stick to the list when feasible. (Minor note: part is on the list under "Things".) There is also a more extensive list with 2600 words. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished the review. My editing suggestions have been added to the end of the Talk page for the article. David Spector (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sucralose edit

You said: I notice that you deleted a good reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sucralose&diff=next&oldid=1118185540 . May I ask why you did that? I'm sure you had a good reason.

The source was already used in the article, where it was unformatted. I put the book into format with this revision. Cheers! Zefr (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the info. I was just making sure it was okay. You know more about WP editing than I do. David Spector (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question for administrator

I'm wondering if I could see the text of the many-times deleted page Michael Gervais, please? I'm curious to verify the self-advertising nature of the page.

--David Spector (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can send you the whole text in an email if you really want, but I'm pretty sure it was copied straight from his company's website (which seems to be defunct). My personal favourite snippet is Applying that passion to explore human performance boundaries to his personal life, Dr. Gervais is an avid surfer who also enjoys skiing Canada’s backcountry. He has come to understand that the answer to his central question lies in the space between hesitation and commitment. And of course the article didn't contain anything even resembling a reliable source. There's nothing of value in there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I won't bother you to give me the entire article. It does sound awfully vague and self-promotional. It's too bad, since he does seem to have one or two points of public notability. David Spector (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there are reliable sources on him, feel free to draft a clean version but there's nothing salvageable in the deleted history. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of WikiArt for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WikiArt is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiArt until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

lettherebedarklight 晚安 07:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. I have reviewed the article and written my opinion. David Spector (talk) 10:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding editing out a sentence about the superdeterminism loophole

Hi David, thanks for leaving your explanations for editing out the sentence I added in the article Quantum Mechanics about superdeterminism. I left my response here. Please check and I'd appreciate your response. Proshno (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your lengthy response. I just saw a notification two days later by WP. I only replied to its first point due to lack of time (busy with an important project). I hope to respond to more of your points as and when I have more available time. I have responded to your issue several times already, and hope that you have found all those responses. While I am glad that physics accepts speculations (because sometimes these turn out to be useful), I am also glad that physics distinguishes between conjecture, which usually turns out to be false, and knowledge (laws and theories), which almost always are true, but sometimes get overturned. Physics thus has a combination of flexibility and inflexibility so that it is maximally useful at any given time in its history.

The particular sentence you wish to add to WP is not acceptable to most physicists and most intelligent people who are educated in physics, because it is conjecture and not fact (a law or a theory). For this reason, you will find yourself in very small company in your campaign, and for that reason you will not succeed in adding the sentence. However, that being said, there is nothing to stop you from writing a good WP article on conjectures in physics.

Historically, many parts of physics started out as conjecture, so many conjectures became a law or a theory. Others were dropped. Currently, there are many conjectures, some of which are under serious research, while others are languishing and will probably disappear.

An example (perhaps not the best, but it comes to mind) is the theory of Aether (classical element) which, while not completely dead, can certainly be considered to be near dead. Careful experiments have not found aether, and vacuum has been found to contain just the characteristics that used to be ascribed to aether, without its being a substance at all. David Spector (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]