To extend the formula to handle "C", we repeat the process:
Too much physics, too little sources. As a starting point, could the two of you please list exactly what changes you want made to the article? I can't tell how far away from a compromise we are. If there's a diff of your preferred version in the article history, linking to that is fine.
I'm trying to help, but the huge amount of volume you're both producing makes it nearly impossible for an interested but uninformed outside to follow. Once the points we have been discussing lately are in agreement, we can start editing other things.
I think I have explained enough above, point by point. I can copy and paste what I have already written if needed; b I would reduce the amount of data presented in some of the technical questions and make the page shorter. Most physics pages aren't that detailed and there is really no reason to explain what kind of unusual mathematical formalism Lisi uses.
It's not useful information in an Encyclopedia. This page is not a way to advertise Lisi's theory or Lisi's paper, thus the lede, a technical summary to be rewritten a little more succinctly and the chronology and reactions sections are more than enough.
If the reader is interested in reading a lot of things about the decomposition they can read Lisi's paper, wikipedia is not a place where to put all the results written in a paper and Lisi was even wrong in some of the last comments about the E8 decomposition in his original paper, like he admitted in Distler's blog, I go by memory here Otherwise, because looking at the history of the page it seems like Scientryst is the main contributor for both the page if we exclude one banned user that had several minor edits in a row and the discussion page, I would like to have Scientryst take a pause from editing and leaving some other wikipedian edit this page.
It is quite strange that he's almost the only one trying to make this theory look better than it is. I can repeat the main sources: Lisi's original paper, D-G's paper, Lisi's other paper for the physics and some quotations.
SciAm for quotations and comments. First, we never, under any circumstances, attempt to determine the real world identity of any editor. In fact, if you somehow found out that I, for example, was Lisi, and you announced that on Wikipedia, you'd be severely criticized and possibly outright blocked this is called WP: We aren't even allowed to identify the IP address of a named editor.
Second, you have got to stop criticizing Scientryst as an editor, and stick only to criticizing the edits that you think are not neutral, not well sourced, or whatever.
Technically speaking, even if Scientryst is Lisi, or Distler, or anyone else related to this discussion, it is acceptable to for that person to edit the article, so long as they do so following all of our policies.
If you have some evidence, beyond just the point of view that you allege, that Scientryst is one of the principals or is related to themyou can take it to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. I will tell you, though, that I see no evidence of that at all.
Scientryst may at some times be a bit on Lisi's "side", but, to be honest, your editing looks POV to me sometimes, too. Alternatively, if you just think Scientryst isn't being neutral, then take it to WP: But your repeated attempt to turn this into a problem with Scientryst, instead of just focusing on making the article better, is unhelpful and is moving towards unacceptable.
Lisi Arxiv issue is being treated--is that correct? If so, Scientryst, what change is it that you specifically want to see? I had read somewhere clearly a poor source that admins were allowed to check IPs in some cases, my bad, so I thought I was just acting following the policies I found.
Now I know and sooner or later I'll take the situation to WP: I strongly disagree with my edits being POV, I must admit that I have been stumbling into subtle WP policies that I had never been exposed before and didn't know how to treat.
So maybe today I wouldn't edit things the way I did a few weeks ago, but "everything" I have edited is the verifiable truth, honestly.
The problem is that here there is this strangely inclusive definition of original research that doesn't even allow us to say "no paper has been posted on the arXiv disproving D-G paper", a true statement. I didn't know I couldn't say something true and verifiable just because it needed direct verification.
There is also a subtle "interpretation" of what "interpretation of sources" means that I wasn't aware of.
This is to say that my edits maybe were to adjust, but they were not POV, they were just saying something true maybe in a silly way.The historical-critical method as applied to biblical studies has long been a source of controversy.
Does it aid or support Christian convictions, or do its principles and methodology intrinsically tend to work like an acid, slowly eroding the intellectual foundations of Christian theism as a viable worldview?
This paper provides quantitative data that, in many cases, open source software / free software is equal to or superior to their proprietary competition.
The paper examines market share, reliability, performance, scalability, scaleability, security, and total cost of ownership; it also comments on non-quantitative issues and unnecessary fears.
Download-Theses Mercredi 10 juin Fideisms Judaism is the Semitic monotheistic fideist religion based on the Old Testament's ( BCE) rules for the worship of Yahweh by his chosen people, the children of Abraham's son Isaac (c BCE).. Zoroastrianism is the Persian monotheistic fideist religion founded by Zarathustra (cc BCE) and which teaches that good must be chosen over evil in order to achieve salvation.
Copy of Embedding Quotations Copy of SWBAT: identify and dissect a top quality conclusion Copy of How to Add Viewpoint Language into Writing I may need to use an easier text for some of my lowest readers.Â This text was a bit too difficult for a few kids.Â Also, I will plan a series of follow-up lessons on knowing when you have lost.
The situation with the scores/grade collection calls into question the validity the experiment. p. these should be acknowledged in the study or inferred from your knowledge about the threats to .