Talk:Bernard Haisch

520: 1593:

keep my hands off this article about me. My only "right" is to complain on a separate page, that most readers never visit. Never mind whether or not I wish to be in the Knowledge (I don't) or whether this will damage my reputation. I wage an uphill battle to get the facts straight with partial success, but while the process is still underway Hillman decides she has grown weary of my ingratitude and I should shut up and be thankful for her efforts. I truly now see the dark side of Knowledge, and I expect that the Knowledge experiment will experience a train wreck eventually over this kind of authoritarian, and probably libelous, behaviour.

1635:, but also other editors, have been doing a fine and generous job within Knowledge conventions to accommodate you. You may never be satisfied with the result. Ah well. Outside of Knowledge the same thing is true: you don't get to impose on people what opinion to have of you, nor with what respect to treat your work. As in life, so in Knowledge. Your only power here is the power of persuasion. Please feel free to continue to use this talk page, but you may be surprised to find what a week away from the struggle can do for your equanimity, and your effectiveness. -- 1895:: the "resolution" is subject to random editorial whim. Let's be brutally honest here: how would you like it if someone parked a howitzer in your front yard, aimed it into your living room, loaded it, and left the trigger open to use by random passers at their sole discretion? Would you feel better if, when you complained, someone just flicked the safety on and called it a "resolution"? Far better, more fair, equitable, etc, would be to simply give the subjects of biographies the same absolute veto you have over the contents of your frontyard. 2601:. With regard to your suggestion that "as much as you think Chris' behaviour has been inappropriate, I think saying so is probably unhelpful" that is part of the problem. No one should be expected to sit back and be passive when one's carrer is being inappropriately misconstrued. I have tried and will continue to be civil, and indeed appreciative for assistance from you. But I maintain that Hillman has shown enough bias to warrant ceasing further involvement with my entry. But once again, thank you. 429: 1399:? Unless I overlooked something, it does not. The category is needed because as I take it even Haisch agrees, his name is frequently invoked in some cranky contexts. While doing something else I came across from a website which tends toward the credulous, which may or may not be an example (too busy to read it in detail right now), but anyone who Googles for websites mentioning Haisch, Puthoff, Bearden, Naudin, etc., will soon see what I mean. Hope this allays your concern.--- 1110:, which Haisch had formerly appended to the end of your first sentence. The idea I assume he was trying to convey was that use of this for spacecraft was a "blue sky" kind of thing, not something which was likely to be used soon or even ever. The current version could be read to mean that they are saying that their theory has immediate practical application for space flight, which apparently Haisch claims isn't true. Again a good source would be helpful in resolving this. 1205:(7) My postdocs at CIPA actually spent more time on string and brane theory and general relativity than on stochastic electrodynamics. This can be verified by looking at the CIPA-funded papers published by Halyo, Shmakova and Tung. Only Hushwater spent much time on SED. So a fair representation is not "stochastic electrodynamics and other topics" but rather "string theory, brane theory, general relativity and stochastic electrodynamcs" or whatever order you choose. 697: 1069:"Bernard Haisch is an astrophysicist best known for developing (with Alfonso Rueda) a speculative theory proposing that a hypothetical "zero-point-field inertia resonance" might provide a physical explanation for the origin of inertia, and more controversially, might be used for spacecraft propulsion. In internet culture, Haisch is also known for his interest in the UFO phenomenon and his willingness to seriously consider a wide variety of unorthodox topics." 1456:(1) You keep emphasizing the spacecraft propulsion claims, instead of the physics. In our refereed physics papers we talk about a "quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis" based on stochastic electrodynamics analysis. That is our substantive scientific proposal. The spacecraft propulsion is popular article speculation. In fairness you should therefore reference our "quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis" instead of "zero-point-field inertia resonance." 1187:(1) You keep emphasizing the spacecraft propulsion claims, instead of the physics. In our refereed physics papers we talk about a "quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis" based on stochastic electrodynamics analysis. That is our substantive scientific proposal. The spacecraft propulsion is popular article speculation. In fairness you should therefore reference our "quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis" instead of "zero-point-field inertia resonance." 1441:(3) This is a rare example of where a transliteration gives an erroneous impression. Yes, "extraterrestrische Physik" translates as "extraterrestrial physics" but really is the same field of research as what we call "Space Physics" in the U.S. which does not carry any "alien" implication as "extraterrestrial" now does in the U.S. The institute is after all leading German research organization within the family of Max-Planck-Institutes. 853: 510: 483: 1823:

a popular article type of speculation. So why is our work on inertia couched in terms of propulsion instead of in terms of what it is on the basis of our refereed papers: a proposal for a possible alternative to the Higgs? Why are you ignoring the terminology we actually use? Choosing the former for discussion in place of the latter merely serves to sensationalize, which is why I still claim that this is not yet neutral.

718: 2661:

deal with people whose identity I actually know, as all of you know mine. There is an unfair asymmetry here. As for the Hillman nomenclature, Chris apparently made the same transition one of my best friends made, but my friend did everything in the open and managed to continue a highly successful career in astrophysics in her new persona, which I greatly admired. There was no attempt to become "this mysterious entity."

802: 367: 336: 625: 1918:

traditional solution. I thought that the article gave ample credit to his mainstream endeavors while deliberatively contextualizing his other pursuits with statements like "within internet culture" etc. If this was my first exposure to the subject, I would come away thinking that Bernard was a serious scientist with a remarkable range of interests. YOu would think that this would be satisfactory.

607: 219: 305: 1196:(4) People usually assume, as you did, that I founded the Journal of Scientific Exploration. I did not. It was founded by Prof. Ronald Howard at Stanford University in 1987 who served as the first editor for a year and a half before I took over. Since it is widely assumed that I founded the Journal it is an important piece of information for this article that I did not. 449: 353: 1631:, as has any thinking person who has been involved here for long. The fact that anyone would treat the contents of Knowledge with respect is an indication that somehow, miraculously, its crazy non-academic methods produce unexpectedly viable results. I don't claim to understand it myself, but I can assure you resistance is futile. In my view, not only 1618:

can cast you as a genius or an imbecile, a respected scientist or a crackpot. Experience shows excesses tend to dampen over time, converging to something factual and NPOV. If your reputation depends on what Knowledge says about you, it is a very fragile reputation indeed. The fact is that at any given instant a vandal could replace a page,

1163:. Note that I have extensively rewritten that in order to neutralize it. It presented JSE as a mainstream scientific journal until I came along, so I rewrote it from scratch. Haisch protested, so I completely rewrote it a second time, and I think my most recent version is a good compromise which makes the key points in a concise way. 377: 1380:", this seems like a false dichotomy, why does it have to be in either category? The term "fringe science" definitely leaves a pejorative impression — when I see this I immediately think "lunatic fringe". I also wonder whether it is verifiable. What is the source for the claim that Haisch is a "fringe" physicist? 1211:(9) Under "Digital Universe" I strongly suggest that you remove "Some observers have questioned whether the involvement of Joe Firmage and Haisch might compromise this goal." First of alll, who are the observers? and even so, if Knowledge is seen as trashing a competitor, that will backfire on you eventually 1338:"Under "Digital Universe" I strongly suggest that you remove "Some observers have questioned whether the involvement of Joe Firmage and Haisch might compromise this goal." First of alll, who are the observers? and even so, if Knowledge is seen as trashing a competitor, that will backfire on you eventually." 2742:

topics. To the neutral reader who is reasonable, yet time-constrained, such a sentence should be enough to turn her/him off since it conveniently appears at the top without qualification. It fails to mention that he advocates the rigorous use of the scientific method in studying phenomena outside the

2268:

How do we do this? Would you mind terribly making an updated list of the differences so that we have a current point of reference. I feel really lost and overwhelmed by this discussion scattered across many pages. Actually, Paul, I really do think the kind and ethical thing would be to work backwards

2040:

Since there has been increased interest in this article of late, I thought it might be useful to copy here, three sections from my talk page which concern this article (much of which should probably have taken place here in the first place). They provide some more background into how this article was

1662:

I also understand Haisch's exasperation with the stress that the Knowledge article puts on his speculative articles. While his more speculative theories are obviously more interesting to the general public, which is the audience we are writing for here, I feel that the article is indeed unbalanced in

1596:

But returning to your own very reasonable question. The world is full of gravitation theories that are totally flakey. There is absolutely no good reason not to list the topics which were "string and brane theory, general relativity and stochastic electrodynamics." That's actually what went on there.

1574:

1 and 2. I don't think I fully understand the dispute here. From the point of an encyclopedia, your "popular article speculation" may be no less important than your "refereed physics papers". I suspect that your notability may have as much to do (if not more) with the former rather than the latter. I

2189:

I didn't think I wrote anything that implied that you had revereted, and upon rereading it, I can't see what you are refering to, can you point me to any language that seems to imply that? Anyway I didn't intend that and I apologise if I somehow left that impression. Nor was that section meant to be

1822:

Our published scientific papers are about a "quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis" which would be an alternative to the Higgs explanation for mass. That terminology, "quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis," is in fact in the title of our last paper. The concept of modifying inertia for propulsion is purely

1617:

to continue to refer to him by the wrong name, "Christine". I have watched enough of your behavior to think he is absolutely right to suggest you need a time out. You do not get to choose whether or not an article on you appears in Knowledge, and you have no veto power over its contents. The article

1553:

1. As Chris said, we don't want the POV flag to remain forever. like everything else in the article It should remain so long as the consensus among of editors is that it should. Some guidelines for keeping it would be a clear statement, by those who dispute the neutrality of the article, of what any

2762:

Finally, what is this business with the "bizarre saga with Joe Firmage"? How is it related to Bernard Haisch's biography? It seems more like tabloid journalism than an encyclopedia entry...especially since Haisch's comments in that article are more level-headed than Firmage's outbursts. Granted, it

2304:

Well Chris doesn't get to "set the terms", we all (including you) set the terms by consensus, so I have to consider Chris's concerns as well as yours. As I said I will see what I can do. If you feel strongly enough you can revert back to "your version", I won't revert again, but someone else might,

2219:

About the article itself, I have no strong feelings about any of the differences between your version and Haisch's version. I just think it would be helpful to discuss the differences on the talk page and see if we can't come up with something which is acceptable to all of us. I have been following

2175:

in between). My intent was to compare the differences between your last version (which I assumed corresponded to a version with which you were reasonably content) and the current version (with which Haisch seems reasonably content) to try to produce a version we can all live with. If there is some

1783:

Looks like this has been done. Please remember that it was I who asked for examples like this! All I ask is that the reference list not grow any longer than it is now. WP is a general encyclopedia, not RMP, so we need to keep the number of citations to research papers strictly limited and the we

1592:

The attitude displayed in Christine Hillman's latest posting is rather appalling. As a self-appointed "editor" she decides on her own "authority" to summarize my career. Her first crack at it is full of errors and NPOV violations. When I discover this I am told that by "your rules" I am supposed to

2446:

Just to be clear: do you disagree with the principle that the subject of a wikibiography should be discouraged from himself writing or rewriting his own wikibiography? Please note that everyone appears to agree that the subject can contribute on the talk page to express concerns, suggest factual

1622:

page, with total gibberish. The page on Einstein might have a statement inserted to the effect that he was a Nazi collaborator, or that his theories have been totally discredited, or that he was a silicon-based lifeform from Proxima Centauri. Knowledge is what it is, and to treat it as if it were,

964:

To mention one issue: I requested Haisch for a bit of standard biographical information (birthdate, birthplace) as per comparable wikibios. Not absolutely neccessary, I suppose, but given the detail on other things, it seems like a good idea. I think it would be best if he replies here after his

2660:

I think my good friend Larry Sanger created a Frankenstein when he set up this anonymous editing. You see, my career is totally out in the open and it would be really nice if Wikipedians were not allowed to be so shadowy (note that I did not say shady, a different connotation). I would prefer to

2065:

I am ready to present justifications for each of those changes, but sincerely hope you and Hillman might simply accept them as reasonable so that I don't need to waste more hours on this. There is one additional change that I think is fair: to substitute "non-mainstream" for the pejorative, value

1529:

Chris you seem to be getting exasperated, I'm sorry for that, and especially if you think I have contributed in any way to your dissatisfaction. I think you have done a good job so far in dealing with most of Bernard's (and my) concerns (if not so much our persons). I think the article is in much

1340:

By "you" I presume you mean Knowledge. I have myself pointed out that it is a tricky issue how to handle this, since some of the observations I have in mind have been in Knowledge pages, and include comments by myself. Let's let this stand for a while since I expect experienced Wikipedians will

1305:

is the term which seems best to me, particularly since you presumably would be even more upset if someone wanted to describe Haisch and Rueda as "fringe science". Again, please note that the current version represents quite a compromise in deference to your objections. My feeling is that if the

1691:

My main research from the mid 1970s until the late 1990s was high energy astrophysics, and specifically the ultraviolet and X-ray emissions from coronae and flares on the Sun and other late-type stars. I co-chaired two major International Astronomical Union conferences on these topics: Solar and

2098:. By the way, as a courtesy to other editors, can you please "sign" your talk page posts by typing four tilde's "~~~~"? The software (under the default settings) will replace the four tildes with your username, together with a time and date stamp (like the one following my post here). Regards — 2020:

to all parties to the dispute, as far as that is possible. This straightforwardly implies that the article as a whole simply cannot be a negative one, for the simple reason that Bernie and his many colleagues (i.e., the people who actually know him, unlike most of you writing about him) take a

2250:

I plan to stay involved for awhile at least. I think I understand your concerns and I'm prepared to try to address them on the talk page of that article. For now I would prefer if we all could discuss any substantive changes on the talk page first before editing the article. To that end I have

1784:

are right at my own informal limit (fills up a typical browser screen). I think the current version makes the point that Haisch has published quite a bit of "ordinary science" while not disguising the fact that he has also published claims which might raise eyebrows. All I ask is that no-one

1515:

I really must insist at this point that you let this go now. In my opinion, you are over the pettiness limit regarding your objections to this article. By the way, it would be nice to hear a "thank you" for the effort of myself in addressing your concerns promptly and fairly, instead of more

2293:

Again, thanks for your intervention. But what gives Christine Hillman the right to set the terms? You have as much right as she does. And what about my rights? Now that I see this process up close, I can begin to appreciate those who were tainted as "commies" by McCarthy. That's how I see her

2427:

I have reverted to my most recent version and am willing to discuss line by line, but only after Haisch has taken a few days to calm down. I don't think the differences between my version and his are really that huge, but I resist the idea that he should be given license to rewrite his own

2317:. However I strongly urge you to please give the discussion on the talk page a chance for at least a day or so, to see if any progress can be made there. The article has already changed significantly based upon the points you have raised so far. I am confident that that process can continue. 1917:

I just came to this discussion after reading the article in a local paper. My first thought is that everyone involved is way too close to the argument and should take a breather. Maybe Bernard should write an autobiography if this article doesn't suit his self-perception- that has been the

2514:. Anyway I don't think we really disagree about this. I'm perfectly happy to ask and encourage Haisch to refrain from editing that article, and as you suggest, instead make suggestions for changes on the talk page. However at the moment I'm really more concerned about the changes that 1957:

Looks like contrary to my fears, this article hasn't changed much since I left the wail of dismay in the preceding section (one of many similar messages--- possibly not my wisest comments on record!). One thing which wasn't clear to me from the L. A. Times piece was whether Haisch is

2322:

By the way, I know in a case like this, when you think your reputation is being attacked, it can be difficult to remain civil (which by the way I think you have done for the most part). In particular though, please try not to make this about the individual editors involved (see

2279:

I was working on an updated list of differences when I saw your post above. As for starting with your version and working from there, I've already proposed that but without much success, but I will see what I can do. I'm hopeful we can work things out on the talk page there.

1962:

unhappy with his bio, which actually looks quite reasonable to me as I write. In any case, I share his frustration with the fact that the hard work put into this article by several people can be undone in an instant by any anon. Be this as it may, curious readers can see

1658:

I agree with the last point: if the organization is important enough to be mentioned, then we should say what they do specifically. I changed the article accordingly (I left out brane theory since that is implied by string theory, at least in my understanding of the

1333:

The article now says just "physicists". I remember seeing an eprint (on Reissner-Nordstrom electrovacuum) by one of them which I had to correct by email, which is presumably why it was withdrawn. "Prestigious departments" doesn't impress me. Good work impresses

1507:

Enough, already! You have already gotten far more attention than any journal would grant. You never provided the additional biographical information I requested and you never bothered to respond to my request for confirmation that you agree that there are no

1723:

One editor who thinks otherwise is a bot, who misinterpreted a CfD result of "Keep, and merge creationist articles to Pseudoscience" as "merge". Due to the moves, I thought that was the decision that was made, having not seen the actualy CfD. Sorry about that

1183:

I'm glad to see that we are converging, but I do request that the "neutrality disputed" flag remain for the time being. Here are some remaining issues working my way down through the article, but overall my anxiety level is considerably reduced at this point.

1097:

Yes I am looking at the current version. Do you see some discrepancy between what I wrote above and the version we are talking about? In particular what I wrote above agrees with what you gave for the first sentence. Perhaps you are misreading what I wrote?

2751:

of extra-terrestrial origin, there is clearly a need to study them scientifically. In light of this, Haisch in my view is simply being a good scientist---as he clearly is. But you have to look below the "turn me off" phrase to get to the meat of it.

1447:(7) My postdocs did research in string theory, brane theory, general relativity and stochastic electrodynamcs. That is a fact and you should therefore list those topics. "Gravitation physics" could be misinterpreted. Do not censor this list, please. 2443:: comparing his versions and mine I think it is obvious that I am the better writer, at least on this subject, and since I wrote the original version I also can more easily see where to fit in new material in a way which respects the flow of ideas. 1202:(6) It is editorializing to say: "In particular, it sells videotapes of lectures on such topics as faith healing, Gaia, and life after death." I am not responsible for what the Institute of Noetic Sciences sells. This is really an NPOV violation. 928:

Well this statement "have proposed can in fact be used to propel spacecraft" vs what Haisich version: "have proposed can perhaps be used to propel spacecraft someday" might be claimed to be a factual inaccuracy (Outstanding issue number 2 below).

2844:

you added were supported with evidence further down in the article. For instance, does anyone dispute that he is an astrophysicist, that he is involved in ManyOne, or that he wrote a book attempting to reconcile scientific belief with religion?

1147:

I understand that is the issue, but I am not sure I see a good way to briefly address this, since "someday (perhaps far in the future)" seems very clumsy. At some point, we need to value readability over the tender feelings of the subject of a

1310:"It is editorializing to say: "In particular, it sells videotapes of lectures on such topics as faith healing, Gaia, and life after death." I am not responsible for what the Institute of Noetic Sciences sells. This is really an NPOV violation." 2746:

Even a recently declassified Ministry of Defence document judges that UFOs are real, offering up a conservative estimate that they are a natural phenomenon worthy of scientific study, and potentially dangerous to aviation. So even if UFOs are

915:

I changed the flag from {{totallydisputed}} to {{NPOV}} since as far as I can see, no-one is claiming that there are any factual inaccuracies in the article. The dispute seems to concern whether or not the article is slanted against Haisch.

1710:(twice) from the article, since I've heard no convincing argument why it is an appropriate category for this article. Could those who think otherwise please give an explanation, together with sources, why this category applies here? Thanks. 1190:(2) If you do keep a reference to our propulsion speculation, please be fair to report that I always indicate that even if the physics is correct an application to propulsion could be decades or centuries away... and indeed perhaps never. 1459:(2) If you do keep a reference to our propulsion speculation, please be fair to report that I always indicate that even if the physics is correct an application to propulsion could be decades or centuries away... and indeed perhaps never. 1316:

organization, which is neccessary in the service of our readers (including students, recall) who would otherwise see only the term "science" in the name and might not be sufficiently experienced to recognize that INS is not a scientific

1663:

hardly describing Haisch's work in mainstream science. Looking at his CV, it seems his main focus was solar flares. Bernard, is that correct? Could you fill us in a bit about your work; e.g., what publications would be good to cite? --

1575:

agree we need to fairly characterize the degree of speculatively you place on the application to propulsion. Right now I would favor adding a qualifying "someday" in the first sentence. But I want to think about both of these some more.

2239:

I would greatly appreciate your continued involvement in getting this article to be factual and unbiased. Christine keeps letting her bias show through and does not even see it (see the latest on the Bernard Haisch article talk page).

2269:

from my version. It is my reputation that has been attacked and here I am fighting an uphill battle. I am really beginning to see the dark side of Knowledge. Please do consider re-reverting to mine to work down from that... please.

1534:"let this go". Nor is there any "pettiness limit". If you are running out of patience with Haisch and dealing with this article, then perhaps you should consider taking a break from this article and let other editors deal with it. 1647:

My goodness Mr. KSmrq, you certainly seem to be intoxicated by the power of the faceless, nameless proletariat. You have done an excellent job of articulating the danger of mob rule, though I don't think that was your intent.

2417:. I think I have bent over backwards to be helpful to him as a newbie but his childish insults are beginning to grow tiresome. Please note that I have urged him several times to review our policies for talk page behavior. 1158:

Haisch has protested that notion that JSE is a "fringe journal", but I think even he recognizes that it is seen that way by most of his peers. However, our focus here should be to push any discussion of that issue off onto

3058: 3068: 1347:

I insist on keeping the citations limited since this is a general encyclopedia article, but I will add that using the citation template if you give me the citation so that I am sure I know which paper you have in

153: 1284:

is the most suitable term. I have no doubt that "fringe publications" is appropriate in the section where that term is used. I trust you noticed that Haisch and Rueda papers are described as presenting a

1678:

Thank goodness I finally have a couple of editors involved, you and Paul August, who are more neutral than Hillman. Here are three papers worth citing that relate to my solar-stellar astrophysics work.

2840:, who is not sympathetic to Haisch. I don't see how the article fails to be neutral, but please list specific statements here that you find questionable. I removed the "best known for" part; the other 1967:

for my running compilation of criticism of Knowledge in the mainstream media. I think many of these critics make some telling points and I'd like to see the Knowledge community acknowledge this. ---

1444:(4) I had nothing to do with founding of the Society for Scientific Exploration. The fouding committee was composed entirely, I believe, of university professors and I joined a couple of years later. 1376:

Chris: Re (9): "Some observers have questioned whether the involvement of Joe Firmage and Haisch might compromise this goal." What is the source for this? Re (11) "the alternative is the subcategory

1321:"So a fair representation is not "stochastic electrodynamics and other topics" but rather "string theory, brane theory, general relativity and stochastic electrodynamcs" or whatever order you choose." 952:. When he comes back here, I feel he should raise any additional concerns in this talk page and let me (or some other hopefully neutral WP editor) make any needed changes in the article itself. 2489:

Huh? I specifically said that I don't deny Haisch the right to suggest changes in the talk page. And of course he has the right to make edits to articles on topics which are not controversial

1557:

3. Concerning the Max Plank Institute, in particular, since I was the one who made that change I'm happy to restore the original version — it may be nitpicking, but that's what nits are for ;-)

1208:(8) They were not "students." Their appointment terms said "fellows." All had Ph. D.s (and came to CIPA from prestigious departments: Stanford Physics, SLAC, U. Chicago, Princeton, U, Maryand. 901:

This talk page discussion had gotten very confusing (repetitive and messy) so I archived almost all of it. Please see next section for discussion of current version (14:31, 13 June 2006). ---

3053: 1331:"They were not "students." Their appointment terms said "fellows". All had Ph. D.s (and came to CIPA from prestigious departments: Stanford Physics, SLAC, U. Chicago, Princeton, U, Maryand." 2126:, since I think that if you look into this, I have in fact been highly responsive to Haisch's concerns, I just don't think he should be allowed to write his own profile here. Therefore, 1807:) will agree to remove the flag now? (I at least don't want to get into any more long discussions with Haisch, by the way; it seems to me that a simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.) --- 1306:

subject of the wikibio of a controversial figure is only mildly unhappy with it, then WP editors have probably done a pretty good job of coming up with a fair and accurate article.

1082:, first sentence: well, what is the difference between "second editor" and "a former editor" that is so important? The latter appears to me more meaningful to the general reader. 2348:

Okay, I will await your updated list of differences on the talk page of the article, and then give my reasons for each one. Thanks for your efforts. It is genuinely appreciated.

1882:- which (in my view unnecessarily) puts blame on the Knowledge community for the initial problem - and fails to credit it for a resolution which has allayed many of his concerns. 438: 346: 3093: 284: 3073: 3063: 2610:

By the way, have a look at the Discussion page of the Journal of Scientific Exploration by others than me and you will see further evidence of NPOV violation by Hillman.

147: 3113: 673: 2518:

want to make to the article. Can you tell me why you have reverted the changes that I made to the article? Did you read my comments posted on the talk page first?

2976: 2972: 2958: 2531:

Paul, please help. Hillman has taken down the Disputation banner. That should certainly be my right to display. This is inappropriate behaviour on Hillman's part.

3138: 3098: 1450:(10) The paper is: Inertia as a zero-point-field Lorentz force, B. Haisch, A. Rueda & H.E. Puthoff, Physical Review A, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 678-694 (1994). 1006:

These statements are in conflict. Which is it? Did they propose that it "can in fact" propel? Or that it was merely a possibility? What is the source for this?

576: 2731:

In internet culture, Haisch is also known for his interest in the UFO phenomenon and his willingness to seriously consider a wide variety of unorthodox topics.

3043: 1685:

SOLAR-LIKE M-CLASS X-RAY FLARES ON PROXIMA CENTAURI OBSERVED BY THE ASCA SATELLITE, B. Haisch, A. Antunes, and J.H.M.M. Schmitt, Science, 268, 1327, (1995).

588: 493: 289: 3128: 780: 770: 679: 272:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or 239:. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. 1964: 1530:

better shape than it was and I think you deserve a lot of credit for that, so thanks. But I don't think you have any right or authority to "insist" that

1462:

There is of course athe broader issue that you have picked only the controversial parts of my career for this article, which raises NPOV issues as well.

79: 2016:

Finally a quick reminder from one of the authors of the neutrality policy: neutrality as a principle states that the article be written in a way indeed

2447:

corrections, or describe changes he desires. However, as I say, I think it is best if more neutral editors make any changes to the article itself. ---

1358:. Let's leave this for now because there is an on-going wider discussion regarding that category and changes shouldn't be made until that is resolved. 2497:. I am saying that it would be best if he confine his participation regarding his own wikibio to the talk page, however. Hope this is clear now.--- 3133: 3118: 3088: 566: 2738:

That to me is a sentence that is way too short. It immediately implies that he has a personal interest in and is a willing (impulsive) believer in

2710: 1837:

I created the original version of this article and had been monitoring it, but I am leaving the WP and am now abandoning this article to its fate.

3078: 3038: 395: 264: 2439:

as well as fair and factually accurate, and that is why I think it is best that I implement any changes the WP community feels are neccessary in

1566:

10. Re the Puthoff paper, although Chris replied "done" to this he hasn't actually added the reference yet (perhaps he forgot), so I will now.

1271: 1160: 645: 226: 44: 1692:

Stellar Flares at Stanford University in 1988; and Astrophysics in the Extreme Ultraviolet at the University of California, Berkeley in 1995.

1682:

DISAPPEARANCE OF CORONAL X-RAY EMISSION IN STARS WITH COOL DENSE WINDS, B. Haisch, J.H.M.M. Schmitt and A.C. Fabian, Nature, 360, 239 (1992).

1199:(5) Why have you left the derogatory "Fringe" in the section "Fringe Publications"? "Non-mainstream" would serve better. Please respect NPOV. 519: 3103: 1560:

4. Can you point me to any source which mistakenly mentions that you were the founder of JES? If so that might warrant a dispelling footnote.

746: 85: 2759:

incarnation of the internet where "you shouldn't believe what you read". Or that only "people on the internet pay attention to that stuff".

3123: 3108: 1278:"Why have you left the derogatory "Fringe" in the section "Fringe Publications"? "Non-mainstream" would serve better. Please respect NPOV." 399: 2203:

As for your request for me to explain what I did. Do you mean what edits I made? Here is a diff of all my edits following Haisch's edit:

1499:

So according to you the article should mention only your writings in certain journals, not those in certain other venues? That is absurd.

1847:

I emphatically do not vouch for anything you might see in more recent versions, and given an obvious conflict of interest on the part of

1688:

FLARES ON THE SUN AND OTHER STARS, B. Haisch, K.T. Strong and M. Rodono, Annual Reviews Astron. & Astrophys., Vol. 29., 275, (1991).

1280:

As a newbie, you probably don't know that WP editors have discussed the issue of a maximally neutral term, and I at least concluded that

3048: 542: 403: 3083: 2954:

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

2403: 2190:

any sort of criticism of you (or anyone for that matter). I would be happy to rephrase anything I wrote there to make it more clear.

1263: 1128:

My assumption here is that this was added by Haisch to counter the impression that JSE was run by "kooks" with no academic standing.

1033: 1026: 394:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 2331:), whether accurate or not, negative characterizations of fellow editors or assumptions concerning their motives are unproductive. 1793:

I take it that everyone now agrees that the article contains no factual errors? It seems satisfactorily balanced to me, so maybe

1289:

and I think that at this point you should gracefully accept that whether you like the term or not, the "journals" in the section

725: 702: 649: 641: 632: 612: 1268:"Since it is widely assumed that I founded the Journal it is an important piece of information for this article that I did not." 2818:(ie what the subject is best known for). If you want to see how to treat controversial fringe scientists such as this, look to 2755:

The phrase "in internet culture" is also deceiving as it implies that his "unorthodox work" is somehow disseminated or born of

820: 390: 341: 242: 230: 99: 30: 2763:

is entertaining---however it feels more like a smear campaign of what are effectively the leaders of a Knowledge competitor.

812: 168: 104: 20: 1554:

outstanding POV issues are. And a willingness to respond civilly to attempts to address those POV concerns by other editors.

135: 2944: 2810:. It is also clear that the article is filled with meaningless accolades and legitimizing remarks in an attempt to thwart 2206:

As you can see they were all minor copyedits. If you want me to explain any of them (or anything else) I'd be happy to ;-)

869: 533: 488: 190: 74: 3019: 2085: 1861:), I have reason to believe that POV-pushing will be a particular problem with this article for the foreseeable future. 1858: 1804: 1266:

said this. My understanding is that you are cofounder of the parent organization, Society for Scientific Exploration.

836: 316: 955:

I suggest that any new concerns go in this section because this talk page has become rather confusing to read. TIA ---

1417:. I think placing a person in a category needs to be verifiable just like any other statement of fact about a person. 65: 1563:

7. How might "gravitation physics" be misinterpreted? Can you think of a better way to summarize the research topics?

1341:

comment (hopefully including some who have seen my earlier comments and know how much thought I put into this issue).

2409:

Hi, Paul, I don't think anyone can discuss anything with Haisch until he calms down and agrees to play by our rules

1743:

change all of the merged Pseudoscience cats back to Fringe physics, so there is no need to try to do so yourself. --

2792:

he claims that the Calphysics institute is the "theoretical studies division" of his Motion Sciences Organization.

2371:

Do you have any objection to my putting up a "disputed notice" on the article page until these issues are resolved?

745:

related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

465: 185: 1773:

So, how about adding a few of the things above that actually reference my long mainstream astrophysics research?

1627:

rules, but by its own conventions; I suggest you learn to accept it. I have been exasperated on occasion, as has

1214:(10) In references you should list the Phys. Rev. 1994 paper by Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff that started all this. 2975:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

881: 199: 129: 2724:

I came across the op-ed piece in the LA Times and I still think that there is a dash of value judgement here:

3010: 2926: 1707: 1414: 1377: 1355: 816: 273: 248: 109: 125: 2922: 2900: 1879: 1668: 2372: 2994:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2982: 2934: 2827: 2676: 2632: 2568: 2545: 2522: 2477: 2389: 2362: 2339: 2284: 2259: 2226: 2102: 2045: 2034: 1931: 1762: 1714: 1583: 1538: 1421: 1384: 1135: 1046: 1010: 933: 322: 2925:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2864: 2424:

I cited in my previous message. This would be too confusing to try to explain, so let's start again.

2122:

makes it look like I simply reverted the version by Haisch, which is not true. You might also see my

1840:

Just wanted to provide notice that I am only responsible (in part) for the last version I edited; see

1623:

say, a peer-reviewed journal will only doom you to endless frustration. Knowledge does not operate by

1193:(3) Change "Extreme Ultraviolet Physics Laboratory" to "Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics." 175: 2860: 2790: 2251:

reverted your last edit for now, I hope you don't mind. Please join the point-by-point discussion on

2073: 1986: 1919: 1841: 1312:

The article doesn't imply that you are responsible for what INS sells. It implies that INS is not a

352: 283:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to 2594:

Could you clarify the issue regarding Hillman's proper name. I believe I am using her correct name.

1413:. But I think that is a reasonable inference from the fact that this article has been placed in the 1245:

Good; we have a well-tested process and it seems to work fairly well if everyone plays by the rules.

304: 2891: 2766: 1999:

policy. Just because a living person criticises the article about himself in the media, or because

1927:

Are you talking about the current version of the article, or the version as Haisch first found it?

161: 55: 541:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2780: 2310: 1438:(1) I assume that the "neutrality disputed"" flag can remain indefinitely if necessary, correct? 887: 287:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see 204: 70: 2979:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1293:

are widely regarded as fora for fringe science. Please note that the alternative term would be

428: 2995: 1119:: Yes, I agree, removing that until we have a good source to examine, is the right thing to do. 2896: 2123: 2022: 1664: 236: 51: 2787: 2541:

Well it's back now, and Chris has also added your postdoc info, so let's see what developes.

2435:

In the service of our readers, I think it is important that our articles should strive to be

1493:

Is this article about Bernard Haisch or abott his postdoctoral students who are not students?

644:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with

2673: 2629: 2565: 2542: 2519: 2474: 2386: 2359: 2336: 2281: 2256: 2223: 2099: 2081: 2042: 2008: 2000: 1982: 1928: 1883: 1852: 1798: 1759: 1744: 1725: 1711: 1580: 1535: 1418: 1381: 1132: 1043: 1007: 930: 883: 852: 830: 717: 696: 382: 201: 141: 3002: 2294:

fixation on the obviously biased term "fringe." Have you seen "Good Night and Good Luck?"

1892: 1788:

the examples of fringe papers in odd venues which I added, as I think Haisch wanted to do.

1076:, 3rd para, last sentence: I'll have to look for a cite but have temporarily removed that. 280: 2255:. By the way if you have any wiki-related questions I'd be happy to try and answer them. 2151:

Hi Chris. The link you provided above for "this version" points to a previous version of

2961:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2945:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120425074915/http://rr0.org/personne/h/HaischBernard.html

2918: 2846: 2811: 2807: 2793: 2511: 2466: 2458: 2440: 2429: 2421: 2399: 2156: 1996: 1905: 525: 24: 3001:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2645: 2625: 988:

Old: ""… might be used for spacecraft propulsion someday (perhaps in the far future)."

3032: 2823: 2414: 2410: 2328: 2324: 2314: 2176:

better version to compare, please prode the link, or the date and time stamp. Thanks.

1909: 1294: 738: 734: 2220:

this discussion for awhile, and I though I see if I could help out. I hope I can ;-)

1042:

As I said on the archived talk page I'm particulary concerned with the second item.

2872: 2837: 2649: 2621: 2498: 2448: 2135: 2048: 1968: 1865: 1808: 1740: 1632: 1628: 1614: 1517: 1400: 1364: 1169: 1088: 966: 956: 949: 917: 902: 2784: 2554:

I have responed to the latest version. I think we are converging at last. Thanks.

2867:

and here, and given the subject of the article edits himself here, also noted it

2711:

Why Wiki Can Drive You Wacky: When free-form information gets it wrong, watch out

2968: 2894:

for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/): -->

2819: 2815: 2662: 2611: 2602: 2578: 2555: 2532: 2376: 2349: 2295: 2270: 2241: 2168: 2155:, so I'm not sure what you mean by "use" it for comparison. The two versions of 2077: 1848: 1824: 1794: 1774: 1693: 1649: 1610: 1598: 1531: 1468: 1220: 945: 826: 509: 482: 2948: 2863:

is still removing sourced material, and I don't want to exceed 3rr. I reported

2128:

I think the version I cited above should be the basis for your revised revision

366: 335: 2967:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2598: 1636: 742: 637: 624: 606: 515: 372: 1409:

No, of course, the article does not say that Bernard is a "fringe physicist"

811:

to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include

1736: 1345:" Phys. Rev. 1994 paper by Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff that started all this." 1233:

I do request that the "neutrality disputed" flag remain for the time being.

251:

when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

2699:

Bernard Haisch, DUF President, reports his travails with his Knowledge bio

885: 448: 203: 1896: 2457:

Hi Chris. I have no major disagreements with the guidelines set down in

999:

Old: "… have proposed can perhaps be used to propel spacecraft someday.

3024: 2904: 2880: 2849: 2830: 2796: 2769: 2679: 2665: 2652: 2635: 2614: 2605: 2581: 2571: 2558: 2548: 2535: 2525: 2501: 2480: 2451: 2392: 2379: 2365: 2352: 2342: 2298: 2287: 2273: 2262: 2244: 2229: 2138: 2105: 2025: 2011: 1989: 1971: 1934: 1922: 1912: 1899: 1886: 1868: 1827: 1811: 1777: 1765: 1749: 1730: 1717: 1696: 1672: 1652: 1639: 1601: 1586: 1541: 1520: 1471: 1424: 1403: 1387: 1367: 1223: 1172: 1138: 1091: 1049: 1013: 969: 959: 936: 920: 905: 730: 538: 2814:. Many of the statements are not backed up by sources listed and lack 2069:

Otherwise I think we have come to an entry that is accurate and fair.

2935:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060510020812/http://www.ufoskeptic.org/

996:

Current: "… have proposed can in fact be used to propel spacecraft."

2822:, currently undergoing a major reworking. This kind of posturing is 2806:

This article has been editted by the subject in clear conflict with

2692: 2706:

which, as mentioned above, refers to this article in the LA Times:

2465:

edits at all. At any rate I have some concerns of my own about the

2028:(still having to teach Wikipedians stuff about Knowledge, it seems) 2007:

negative information, or that we should adopt a sympathetic POV. --

1435:

Here are my replies to the issues numbered according to your list.

1260:"was founded by Prof. Ronald Howard at Stanford University in 1987" 1253:"Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics (space physics)" 965:

break and lets me or Paul add this information in our own words.---

402:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the 2789:

I read that Firmage served as "chairman" of the institute, and in

1152: 1274:– hopefully after a break since I need to attend to other things. 1487:

This is a very minor point and you are overdoing the nitpicking.

636:, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the 2428:

wikibiography in his own words, since I think this compromises

2375:

20:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Thought I was logged in but I wasn't.

2473:. Can you please respond to my talk page posts there? Thanks. 2163:, which was the version created by your most recent edit, and 888: 846: 796: 298: 279:

from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially

256: 213: 205: 15: 2938: 2597:

All necessary biographical information on me is available at

2461:. But I don't think we should prohibit an editor from making 2167:, which was the version created by my most recent edit (with 1251:. Done. BTW, I have no quarrel with Paul August anglicizing 3059:

Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles

447: 427: 3069:

Knowledge requested photographs of scientists and academics

2385:

I have no objection to that. That is probably a good idea.

948:

to take a few days off from discussing this article as per

2929:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2871:. Please pay extra close attention on this BLP article. · 1235:

OK by me; can we take it that you agree that there are no

1904:

Perhaps, but I shudder to think what would remain of the

1891:

In his OpEd, Haisch accurately notes that he now bears a

1036:, founded in 1987 by Stanford professor Ronald Howard, …" 809:

contributor may be personally or professionally connected

1864:

Good luck in your search for information, regardless!---

993:

Speculative proposals section, 3rd para, last sentence:

2868: 2204: 2172: 2164: 2160: 2115: 1243:

my anxiety level is considerably reduced at this point.

1056: 1985:

policy. I strongly encourage folks to adhere to it! -

1117:

Speculative proposals section, 3rd para, last sentence

160: 2628:, and is a "he". In any case Hilman goes by "Chris". 1465:

I would certainly like to hear Paul's views on this.

1301:

is pejorative. Clearly we need to fix some term and

1106:: The difference in the first sentence is the phrase 985:

Current: "… might be used for spacecraft propulsion."

1395:

Paul, does the current version say that Haisch is a

729:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 537:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2971:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1878:For Haisch's take on the controversy (again!) see 678:This article has not yet received a rating on the 3054:C-Class biography (science and academia) articles 2118:for your comparision? Presently your section in 2021:decidedly positive view of his life and work. -- 652:, where you can join the project and discussions. 1908:article should we grant him absolute veto. =) 1032:Old: "Haisch served as the second editor of the 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 2577:Just to let you know that I have again replied. 1953:Department of Time: Healing All Wounds Division 1022:"Fringe publications" section, first sentence: 2957:This message was posted before February 2018. 2779:Was the Calphysics institute mainly funded by 2134:what you did after your new revision? TIA --- 2003:applies, does not mean that we should exclude 2836:The article was almost completely written by 2591:Once again, thank you for your intervention. 1297:. One could argue (and some have) that even 1249:"Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics Laboratory" 1126:Fringe publications section, first sentence": 174: 8: 2949:http://rr0.org/personne/h/HaischBernard.html 2648:, and that I generally go by "Chris" :-/ --- 2620:And again you are welcome. As far as I know 1217:(11) You again have "fringe" in Categories. 1025:Current: "Haisch is a former editor of the 3094:C-Class physics articles of Low-importance 1965:User:Hillman/Media_commentary_on_Wikipedia 1480:No, we would not like POV flags to remain 1262:. Last I checked, the current version of 1055:Paul, are you sure you are looking at the 691: 601: 477: 330: 3074:Knowledge requested photographs of people 2917:I have just modified 2 external links on 911:Most recent version (14:31, 13 June 2006) 3064:Science and academia work group articles 1818:Why Propulsion Speculation over Physics? 1352:"You again have "fringe" in Categories." 2420:I made a good regarding the version of 2305:in which case you could revert again … 976:Copied from the just archived talk page 693: 603: 479: 332: 302: 3114:Unknown-importance paranormal articles 2910:External links modified (January 2018) 1272:Talk:Journal of Scientific Exploration 1239:(e.g. wrong birthdate) in the article? 1161:Talk:Journal of Scientific Exploration 630:This article falls under the scope of 2033:Some background: Three sections from 1995:Also a quick reminder that we have a 1981:Just a quick reminder that we have a 7: 3139:Articles with connected contributors 3099:C-Class physics biographies articles 2786:, the timing seems about right. Iin 1453:Now on my list you did not address: 723:This article is within the scope of 531:This article is within the scope of 388:This article is within the scope of 3044:Biography articles of living people 1354:The alternative is the subcategory 1151:OK. If you have time, see several 1108:someday (perhaps in the far future) 439:the science and academia work group 321:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 3129:Low-importance Skepticism articles 1327:, which is I think is even better. 14: 2921:. Please take a moment to review 2693:http://www.dufoundation.org/blog/ 2404:Journal of Scientific Exploration 1264:Journal of Scientific Exploration 1034:Journal of Scientific Exploration 1027:Journal of Scientific Exploration 2715:By Bernard Haisch, July 24, 2006 2687:Larry Sanger is watching also... 2165:04:50, June 11, 2006 Paul August 851: 800: 755:Knowledge:WikiProject Skepticism 716: 695: 658:Knowledge:WikiProject Paranormal 623: 605: 518: 508: 481: 456:An editor has requested that an 375: 365: 351: 334: 303: 262:This article must adhere to the 217: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 3134:WikiProject Skepticism articles 3119:WikiProject Paranormal articles 3089:Low-importance physics articles 2702:July 24th, 2006 by Larry Sanger 2114:Hi, Paul, could you please use 1735:By the way, if you wait a bit, 775:This article has been rated as 758:Template:WikiProject Skepticism 661:Template:WikiProject Paranormal 571:This article has been rated as 412:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography 241:Content must be written from a 225:The subject of this article is 3079:WikiProject Biography articles 3039:Knowledge controversial topics 2831:21:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 2130:. Also, could you explain in 415:Template:WikiProject Biography 1: 2797:16:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 2691:If you check out the DU blog 1155:eprints coauthored by Haisch. 1074:Speculative proposals section 749:and see a list of open tasks. 586:This article is supported by 551:Knowledge:WikiProject Physics 545:and see a list of open tasks. 436:This article is supported by 265:biographies of living persons 42:Put new text under old text. 3104:Physics biographies articles 3025:09:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC) 2905:07:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC) 2881:21:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC) 2510:I meant any edits at all to 2161:02:00, June 11, 2006 Hillman 2094:Hi Bernard. I will reply at 554:Template:WikiProject Physics 400:contribute to the discussion 3124:C-Class Skepticism articles 3109:C-Class paranormal articles 2850:18:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 1080:Fringe publications section 1057:current version as I write? 277:must be removed immediately 235:When updating the article, 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 3155: 3049:C-Class biography articles 2988:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2939:http://www.ufoskeptic.org/ 2914:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2886:Citations & References 2770:09:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC) 2564:Yes, and you are welcome. 1287:"controversial hypothesis" 781:project's importance scale 680:project's importance scale 577:project's importance scale 2680:21:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 2666:05:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 2653:02:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 2636:21:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 2615:19:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 2606:18:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 2582:00:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 2572:21:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 2559:19:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 2549:19:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2536:19:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2526:19:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2502:19:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2481:19:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2469:article, as expressed on 2452:18:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2393:20:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2380:20:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2366:19:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2353:18:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2343:18:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2299:17:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2288:17:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2274:17:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2263:17:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2245:16:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2230:23:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 2139:20:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 2106:17:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 2061:Reply from Bernard Haisch 2049:21:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 2032: 2026:19:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC) 2012:19:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC) 1990:22:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 1972:00:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC) 1935:15:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 1923:15:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 1913:13:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC) 1900:13:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC) 1887:19:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 1869:22:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC) 1828:18:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC) 1812:17:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC) 1778:05:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 1766:01:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 1750:00:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 1731:00:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 1718:00:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 1697:18:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 1673:05:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 1653:06:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 1640:20:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 1613:, a deliberate insult to 1602:00:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 1587:23:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 1542:22:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 1521:19:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 1472:23:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 1425:21:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 1404:20:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 1388:06:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 1368:01:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 1224:19:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 1173:03:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 1139:23:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 1092:22:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 1050:22:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 1014:18:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 970:21:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 960:21:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 937:22:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 921:21:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 906:22:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 774: 711: 677: 618: 585: 570: 503: 455: 435: 360: 329: 237:be bold, but not reckless 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 3084:C-Class physics articles 2856:Sourced material removal 2644:I can confirm that I am 1550:Bernard re your points: 807:The following Knowledge 2120:Haisch's user talk page 2035:Paul August's talk page 1512:in the current article. 1415:category fringe physics 2775:Funding of Calphysics? 2672:End of copied text. — 2646:this mysterious entity 2088:) 16:47, June 11, 2006 1708:Category:pseudophysics 1702:Category Pseudophysics 1502:I see no problem here. 1378:Category:Pseudophysics 1356:Category:Pseudophysics 726:WikiProject Skepticism 633:WikiProject Paranormal 452: 432: 311:This article is rated 229:and content may be in 75:avoid personal attacks 2066:laden term "fringe." 1997:neutral point of view 1325:"gravitation physics" 821:neutral point of view 589:Biographies Taskforce 451: 431: 391:WikiProject Biography 243:neutral point of view 100:Neutral point of view 2969:regular verification 2802:Totally disputed tag 2055:Start of copied text 1977:Living person policy 1842:User:Hillman/Archive 813:conflict of interest 347:Science and Academia 105:No original research 2959:After February 2018 2892:Knowledge:Footnotes 2743:scope of science. 2493:in which he is not 2471:Talk:Bernard Haisch 2253:Talk:Bernard Haisch 2153:Talk:Bernard Haisch 2132:Talk:Bernard Haisch 2096:Talk:Bernard Haisch 1291:Fringe publications 1270:Let's take that to 897:Archived discussion 761:Skepticism articles 664:paranormal articles 534:WikiProject Physics 3013:InternetArchiveBot 2964:InternetArchiveBot 2720:"His Willingness"? 2311:Knowledge:Edit war 1179:Comments by Haisch 453: 433: 418:biography articles 317:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 2989: 2826:for Knowledge. -- 2587:Reply from Haisch 2495:directly invovled 2159:I compared were: 2090: 2076:comment added by 1706:I've removed the 1431:Reply from Haisch 894: 893: 875: 874: 845: 844: 795: 794: 791: 790: 787: 786: 690: 689: 686: 685: 600: 599: 596: 595: 476: 475: 472: 471: 297: 296: 255: 254: 212: 211: 66:Assume good faith 43: 3146: 3023: 3014: 2987: 2986: 2965: 2877: 2843: 2828:ScienceApologist 2089: 2070: 1609:It seems to me, 1397:fringe physicist 1303:"fringe science" 1299:"non-mainstream" 982:First sentence: 944:I again request 889: 866: 865: 855: 847: 804: 803: 797: 763: 762: 759: 756: 753: 720: 713: 712: 707: 699: 692: 666: 665: 662: 659: 656: 627: 620: 619: 609: 602: 559: 558: 557:physics articles 555: 552: 549: 528: 523: 522: 512: 505: 504: 499: 496: 485: 478: 468:to this article. 420: 419: 416: 413: 410: 396:join the project 385: 383:Biography portal 380: 379: 378: 369: 362: 361: 356: 355: 354: 349: 338: 331: 314: 308: 307: 299: 285:this noticeboard 257: 221: 220: 214: 206: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 3154: 3153: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3029: 3028: 3017: 3012: 2980: 2973:have permission 2963: 2927:this simple FaQ 2912: 2888: 2873: 2861:User:Sammyterry 2858: 2841: 2804: 2777: 2722: 2689: 2589: 2407: 2071: 2063: 2038: 1987:Ta bu shi da yu 1979: 1955: 1920:Richardjames444 1893:Damoclean Sword 1835: 1833:Students beware 1820: 1704: 1516:complaints. --- 1433: 1181: 1065:first paragraph 913: 899: 890: 884: 860: 801: 760: 757: 754: 751: 750: 705: 663: 660: 657: 654: 653: 648:, or visit the 556: 553: 550: 547: 546: 524: 517: 497: 491: 417: 414: 411: 408: 407: 381: 376: 374: 350: 344: 315:on Knowledge's 312: 218: 208: 207: 202: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 3152: 3150: 3142: 3141: 3136: 3131: 3126: 3121: 3116: 3111: 3106: 3101: 3096: 3091: 3086: 3081: 3076: 3071: 3066: 3061: 3056: 3051: 3046: 3041: 3031: 3030: 3007: 3006: 2999: 2952: 2951: 2943:Added archive 2941: 2933:Added archive 2919:Bernard Haisch 2911: 2908: 2887: 2884: 2857: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2803: 2800: 2783:? Considering 2776: 2773: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2721: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2713: 2704: 2703: 2700: 2695:and look for: 2688: 2685: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2639: 2638: 2588: 2585: 2575: 2574: 2552: 2551: 2529: 2528: 2512:Bernard Haisch 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2484: 2483: 2467:Bernard Haisch 2441:Bernard Haisch 2422:Bernard Haisch 2406: 2400:Bernard Haisch 2397: 2396: 2395: 2373:69.107.150.126 2369: 2368: 2358:Your welcome. 2346: 2345: 2333: 2332: 2319: 2318: 2291: 2290: 2266: 2265: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2221: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2157:Bernard Haisch 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2124:user talk page 2109: 2108: 2062: 2059: 2037: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2014: 1978: 1975: 1954: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1906:George W. Bush 1880:LA Times Op Ed 1834: 1831: 1819: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1790: 1789: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1753: 1752: 1733: 1703: 1700: 1676: 1675: 1660: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1590: 1589: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1564: 1561: 1558: 1555: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1524: 1523: 1513: 1510:factual errors 1505: 1504: 1503: 1500: 1497: 1494: 1491: 1488: 1485: 1432: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1371: 1370: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1349: 1342: 1335: 1328: 1318: 1307: 1282:fringe science 1275: 1256: 1246: 1240: 1237:factual errors 1180: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1156: 1149: 1130: 1129: 1121: 1120: 1112: 1111: 1104:First sentence 1095: 1094: 1084: 1083: 1077: 1071: 1060: 1059: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1030: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1001: 1000: 997: 991: 990: 989: 986: 974: 942: 941: 940: 939: 912: 909: 898: 895: 892: 891: 886: 882: 880: 877: 876: 873: 872: 862: 861: 856: 850: 843: 842: 841: 840: 805: 793: 792: 789: 788: 785: 784: 777:Low-importance 773: 767: 766: 764: 747:the discussion 721: 709: 708: 706:Low‑importance 700: 688: 687: 684: 683: 676: 670: 669: 667: 642:related topics 628: 616: 615: 610: 598: 597: 594: 593: 584: 581: 580: 573:Low-importance 569: 563: 562: 560: 543:the discussion 530: 529: 526:Physics portal 513: 501: 500: 498:Low‑importance 486: 474: 473: 470: 469: 454: 444: 443: 434: 424: 423: 421: 387: 386: 370: 358: 357: 339: 327: 326: 320: 309: 295: 294: 290:this help page 274:poorly sourced 260: 253: 252: 222: 210: 209: 200: 198: 197: 194: 193: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 25:Bernard Haisch 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3151: 3140: 3137: 3135: 3132: 3130: 3127: 3125: 3122: 3120: 3117: 3115: 3112: 3110: 3107: 3105: 3102: 3100: 3097: 3095: 3092: 3090: 3087: 3085: 3082: 3080: 3077: 3075: 3072: 3070: 3067: 3065: 3062: 3060: 3057: 3055: 3052: 3050: 3047: 3045: 3042: 3040: 3037: 3036: 3034: 3027: 3026: 3021: 3016: 3015: 3004: 3000: 2997: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2984: 2978: 2974: 2970: 2966: 2960: 2955: 2950: 2946: 2942: 2940: 2936: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2915: 2909: 2907: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2893: 2885: 2883: 2882: 2878: 2876: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2855: 2851: 2848: 2839: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2801: 2799: 2798: 2795: 2791: 2788: 2785: 2782: 2774: 2772: 2771: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2758: 2753: 2750: 2744: 2741: 2732: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2719: 2714: 2712: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2701: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2694: 2686: 2684: 2682: 2681: 2678: 2675: 2668: 2667: 2664: 2654: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2637: 2634: 2631: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2613: 2608: 2607: 2604: 2600: 2595: 2592: 2586: 2584: 2583: 2580: 2573: 2570: 2567: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2557: 2550: 2547: 2544: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2534: 2527: 2524: 2521: 2517: 2513: 2509: 2508: 2503: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2482: 2479: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2450: 2444: 2442: 2438: 2433: 2431: 2425: 2423: 2418: 2416: 2412: 2405: 2401: 2398: 2394: 2391: 2388: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2378: 2374: 2367: 2364: 2361: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2351: 2344: 2341: 2338: 2335: 2334: 2330: 2326: 2321: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2297: 2289: 2286: 2283: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2272: 2264: 2261: 2258: 2254: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2243: 2231: 2228: 2225: 2222: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2205: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2140: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2107: 2104: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2067: 2060: 2058: 2056: 2051: 2050: 2047: 2044: 2036: 2027: 2024: 2019: 2015: 2013: 2010: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1988: 1984: 1983:living person 1976: 1974: 1973: 1970: 1966: 1961: 1952: 1936: 1933: 1930: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1921: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1867: 1862: 1860: 1857: 1854: 1850: 1845: 1843: 1838: 1832: 1830: 1829: 1826: 1817: 1813: 1810: 1806: 1803: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1791: 1787: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1776: 1767: 1764: 1761: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1751: 1748: 1747: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1732: 1729: 1728: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1716: 1713: 1709: 1701: 1699: 1698: 1695: 1689: 1686: 1683: 1680: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1661: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1651: 1641: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1621: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1600: 1594: 1588: 1585: 1582: 1579: 1573: 1572: 1571:second list: 1570: 1565: 1562: 1559: 1556: 1552: 1551: 1549: 1548: 1543: 1540: 1537: 1533: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1522: 1519: 1514: 1511: 1506: 1501: 1498: 1495: 1492: 1489: 1486: 1483: 1479: 1478: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1470: 1466: 1463: 1460: 1457: 1454: 1451: 1448: 1445: 1442: 1439: 1436: 1430: 1426: 1423: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1402: 1398: 1389: 1386: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1369: 1366: 1362: 1357: 1353: 1350: 1346: 1343: 1339: 1336: 1332: 1329: 1326: 1323:It now reads 1322: 1319: 1317:organization. 1315: 1311: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1295:pseudoscience 1292: 1288: 1283: 1279: 1276: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1254: 1250: 1247: 1244: 1241: 1238: 1234: 1231: 1230: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1222: 1218: 1215: 1212: 1209: 1206: 1203: 1200: 1197: 1194: 1191: 1188: 1185: 1178: 1174: 1171: 1167: 1162: 1157: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1145: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1137: 1134: 1127: 1123: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1093: 1090: 1086: 1085: 1081: 1078: 1075: 1072: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1061: 1058: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1048: 1045: 1035: 1031: 1028: 1024: 1023: 1021: 1015: 1012: 1009: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 998: 995: 994: 992: 987: 984: 983: 981: 980: 979: 977: 972: 971: 968: 962: 961: 958: 953: 951: 947: 938: 935: 932: 927: 926: 925: 924: 923: 922: 919: 910: 908: 907: 904: 896: 879: 878: 871: 868: 867: 864: 863: 859: 854: 849: 848: 838: 835: 832: 828: 825: 824: 822: 818: 817:autobiography 814: 810: 806: 799: 798: 782: 778: 772: 769: 768: 765: 748: 744: 740: 739:pseudohistory 736: 735:pseudoscience 732: 728: 727: 722: 719: 715: 714: 710: 704: 701: 698: 694: 681: 675: 672: 671: 668: 651: 647: 646:current tasks 643: 639: 635: 634: 629: 626: 622: 621: 617: 614: 611: 608: 604: 591: 590: 583: 582: 578: 574: 568: 565: 564: 561: 544: 540: 536: 535: 527: 521: 516: 514: 511: 507: 506: 502: 495: 490: 487: 484: 480: 467: 463: 459: 450: 446: 445: 441: 440: 430: 426: 425: 422: 405: 404:documentation 401: 397: 393: 392: 384: 373: 371: 368: 364: 363: 359: 348: 343: 340: 337: 333: 328: 324: 318: 310: 306: 301: 300: 292: 291: 286: 282: 278: 275: 271: 267: 266: 261: 259: 258: 250: 246: 244: 238: 234: 232: 228: 227:controversial 223: 216: 215: 196: 195: 192: 189: 187: 183: 182: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 3011: 3008: 2983:source check 2962: 2956: 2953: 2916: 2913: 2897:Nhl4hamilton 2889: 2874: 2859: 2838:User:Hillman 2805: 2778: 2765: 2761: 2756: 2754: 2748: 2745: 2739: 2737: 2730: 2723: 2705: 2690: 2671: 2669: 2659: 2609: 2596: 2593: 2590: 2576: 2553: 2530: 2515: 2494: 2490: 2470: 2462: 2445: 2436: 2434: 2426: 2419: 2408: 2370: 2347: 2306: 2292: 2267: 2252: 2238: 2152: 2131: 2127: 2119: 2116:this version 2095: 2068: 2064: 2054: 2052: 2039: 2023:Larry Sanger 2017: 2005:well-sourced 2004: 1980: 1959: 1956: 1863: 1855: 1846: 1839: 1836: 1821: 1801: 1785: 1772: 1745: 1739:should make 1726: 1705: 1690: 1687: 1684: 1681: 1677: 1665:Jitse Niesen 1646: 1624: 1619: 1595: 1591: 1509: 1482:indefinitely 1481: 1467: 1464: 1461: 1458: 1455: 1452: 1449: 1446: 1443: 1440: 1437: 1434: 1410: 1396: 1394: 1351: 1344: 1337: 1330: 1324: 1320: 1313: 1309: 1302: 1298: 1290: 1286: 1281: 1277: 1267: 1259: 1252: 1248: 1242: 1236: 1232: 1219: 1216: 1213: 1210: 1207: 1204: 1201: 1198: 1195: 1192: 1189: 1186: 1182: 1131: 1125: 1116: 1107: 1103: 1096: 1079: 1073: 1068: 1064: 1041: 975: 973: 963: 954: 943: 914: 900: 857: 833: 808: 776: 724: 650:project page 631: 587: 572: 532: 461: 457: 437: 389: 323:WikiProjects 288: 276: 269: 263: 240: 224: 184: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 2820:Eric Lerner 2781:Joe Firmage 2674:Paul August 2630:Paul August 2626:this person 2566:Paul August 2543:Paul August 2520:Paul August 2475:Paul August 2387:Paul August 2360:Paul August 2337:Paul August 2282:Paul August 2257:Paul August 2224:Paul August 2100:Paul August 2072:—Preceding 2043:Paul August 2018:sympathetic 2009:Philosophus 1929:Paul August 1884:Eh Nonymous 1760:Paul August 1746:Philosophus 1727:Philosophus 1712:Paul August 1581:Paul August 1536:Paul August 1419:Paul August 1382:Paul August 1133:Paul August 1044:Paul August 1008:Paul August 946:User:Haisch 931:Paul August 494:Biographies 148:free images 31:not a forum 3033:Categories 3020:Report bug 1411:explicitly 1314:scientific 1148:biography. 752:Skepticism 743:skepticism 703:Skepticism 655:Paranormal 638:paranormal 613:Paranormal 462:photograph 3003:this tool 2996:this tool 2847:AxelBoldt 2794:AxelBoldt 2173:this edit 2041:written. 2001:WP:LIVING 1477:Bernard: 1229:Bernard: 870:Archive 1 409:Biography 342:Biography 281:libellous 249:citations 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 3009:Cheers.— 2767:Trelayne 2437:readable 2086:contribs 2074:unsigned 1859:contribs 1805:contribs 1758:Thanks. 858:Archives 837:contribs 247:Include 186:Archives 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 2923:my edit 2865:it here 2812:WP:NPOV 2808:WP:AUTO 2622:Hillman 2459:WP:AUTO 2430:WP:NPOV 2171:making 1741:Cydebot 1067:reads: 779:on the 731:science 575:on the 548:Physics 539:Physics 489:Physics 313:C-class 231:dispute 154:WP refs 142:scholar 2824:WP:NOT 2663:Haisch 2612:Haisch 2603:Haisch 2579:Haisch 2556:Haisch 2533:Haisch 2415:WP:AGF 2411:WP:CIV 2377:Haisch 2350:Haisch 2329:WP:NPA 2325:WP:AGF 2315:WP:3RR 2296:Haisch 2271:Haisch 2242:Haisch 2169:Haisch 2078:Haisch 1910:Powers 1849:Haisch 1825:Haisch 1795:Haisch 1786:remove 1775:Haisch 1694:Haisch 1659:term). 1650:Haisch 1611:Haisch 1599:Haisch 1532:Haisch 1490:Noted. 1469:Haisch 1221:Haisch 1144:Paul: 827:Haisch 819:, and 319:scale. 126:Google 2895:tags 2740:quack 1960:still 1637:KSmrq 1496:Done. 1348:mind. 1153:arXiv 950:WP:DR 466:added 458:image 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 2901:talk 2890:See 2869:here 2816:WP:V 2757:that 2327:and 2313:and 2309:see 2082:talk 1853:talk 1799:talk 1737:Cyde 1669:talk 1625:your 1258:JSE 1063:The 1029:, …" 831:talk 741:and 640:and 398:and 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 2977:RfC 2947:to 2937:to 2749:not 2624:is 2463:any 2307:but 1897:mdf 1620:any 1363:--- 1334:me. 1168:--- 1102:1. 1087:--- 916:--- 823:. 771:Low 674:??? 567:Low 464:be 460:or 270:BLP 176:TWL 3035:: 2990:. 2985:}} 2981:{{ 2903:) 2879:· 2875:XP 2842:'s 2683:) 2650:CH 2599:CV 2499:CH 2491:or 2449:CH 2432:. 2136:CH 2084:• 2057:) 1969:CH 1866:CH 1844:. 1809:CH 1724:-- 1671:) 1633:CH 1629:CH 1615:CH 1518:CH 1401:CH 1365:CH 1170:CH 1124:3. 1115:2. 1089:CH 978:: 967:CH 957:CH 918:CH 903:CH 815:, 737:, 733:, 492:: 345:: 156:) 54:; 3022:) 3018:( 3005:. 2998:. 2899:( 2677:☎ 2670:( 2633:☎ 2569:☎ 2546:☎ 2523:☎ 2516:I 2478:☎ 2413:- 2402:- 2390:☎ 2363:☎ 2340:☎ 2285:☎ 2260:☎ 2227:☎ 2103:☎ 2080:( 2053:( 2046:☎ 1932:☎ 1856:· 1851:( 1802:· 1797:( 1763:☎ 1715:☎ 1667:( 1584:☎ 1539:☎ 1484:. 1422:☎ 1385:☎ 1255:. 1136:☎ 1047:☎ 1011:☎ 934:☎ 839:) 834:· 829:( 783:. 682:. 592:. 579:. 442:. 406:. 325:: 293:. 268:( 245:. 233:. 191:1 188:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index