Sun 24 Sep 2017

# User talk:Mgmirkin

## Welcome

Hi Michael, welcome aboard. Feel free to contribute as you see fit. If you have any other suggestions, please let me know --Iantresman 19:52, 21 February 2007 (GMT)

• You're welcome to add whatever you see fit, though I'm trying to steer clear of very controversial material; basically use your judgment.
• We've just had our first vandalism attack, details at Special:Recentchanges from the obvious alias. --Iantresman 18:48, 23 February 2007 (GMT)
• Yeah, vandalism sucks. See my comments on your talk page re: vandalism and thoughts on limiting it. much as I hate lowering free speech rights due to "@hole"s, as it were (I'm referring, of course, to pseudonyms, not to ACTUAL swearing ;o] ). Don't know if suggestions are feasible or not, 'cause I don't know how finely the wiki controls can be tuned. Mgmirkin 21:14, 27 February 2007 (GMT)

## Vandalism and articles

• Thanks for your comment... I would have replied sooner, but for some reason by mail notification didn't work; I'm still figuring out how to configure the Mediawiki software.
• Indeed some form of authentication is required. I've just enabled required email authentication before someone can edit, but of course they could always use a hotmail account.
• I have the facility to block specific users and IP addresses which helps a little. And I can always create a "group" of "editors" who can edit, whereas regular "users" can not. It's just a matter of me working out which work best (and how!).
• The article suggestions all look fine, please go ahead and create what you feel is suitable. There's no need to qualify some of the article titles, eg. "plasma" is fine, rather than "plasma (physics)". --Iantresman 16:25, 3 March 2007 (GMT)

## IP Attack

• Yes, I received over 400 emails noting a password request, also from 71.57.90.96. Coincidentally, this email matches the one from the user who trashed the Web site a week or so ago. Even more coincidentally, this email matches the one from the user with the same IP address at Wikipedia, [1] who has contributed to the article on Plasma Cosmology there.
• I believe the same user also used the IP address 216.125.49.252 to trash this Web site, and also contributes to similar articles at Wikipedia,[2]
• Both IP address resolve to Illinois. I have now blocked them from the site. --Ian Tresman 10:37, 12 March 2007 (GMT)
• Sounds like fun! Why must kids be kids, as it were? One wonders how old folks like this are, and or how narrow-minded, boorish, and a few other words I'll refrain from using... *sigh* I still think that an "approved users only" approach beings to look more favorable, in light of such things. IE, if people want to attend/edit, they should send a request with identifiable info, how they found out about it, who sent 'em, whatever. If they look legit, add them. If the mess things up, revert, warn them, if they mess things up again, block & ban 'em. Of course one would hope the only ones who would request access would be from the Y! group, or someone we know or could verify. Proper vetting, I guess, would be the right term for it? Not to put too much administrative overhead in place, but to try to limit vandalism issues, while otherwise maintaining some level of openness... Mgmirkin 19:55, 12 March 2007 (GMT)
• just got another change password request from (71.57.90.96), how annoying. Why are people such idiots? Seriously, 71.57.90.96 knock it off and go bug someone else. You're not getting my password, and I can mass delete the requests without batting an eyelash. So bugger off & find something better to do. Like finishing preschool or something... Mgmirkin 00:06, 13 March 2007 (GMT)
• My bad, wasn't from here. Apparently they stalked me over to Wikipedia and harassed me there too... What a creep. Needless to say it's been reported. Hopefully wikipedia blocks their IP address too. Serves 'em right. Mgmirkin 01:25, 13 March 2007 (GMT)

## Plasma Universe vs Plasma Cosmology

I've always felt that the Plasma Universe is a superset of Plasma Cosmology. For example, the Plasma Universe might include the auroraa and lunar double layers? --Ian Tresman 20:25, 12 March 2007 (GMT)

• Well, my though would be toward Plasma Universe being more just the physical description of interactions (auroras, double layers, solar plasma interactions, star formation, etc.) and such, whereas "cosmology," in the traditional sense is a bit more inclusive, describing not just the physical universe, but also man's understanding of his place in it. Might also include some things like ties to religions iconography versus plasma formations, world myth, creation myths, from a plasma perspective, etc. Perhaps then they should be separate, and there should be subsection of Plasma Cosmology for "Plasma Universe" with a brief description and a link back to "main article: plasma universe" from that subsection. Then plasma cosmology might also have a section on more cosmological implications relating to myth & religion, but as seen from the vantage point of plasma physicists. IE, the "mask motifs" and "squatting man" and such as various known forms of plasma formation in the lab. Related back to various cultures. Though, I don't know whether myth should be brought into the picture or not. I know in some regards it was mentioned in the EU article on Wikipedia. And I guess there's always been a little confusion between PC and EU ideals. Come to think of it, mythology is more an EU-interest area than PC, I think? PC being more focused on strictly physical interactions and applying plasma principles to stellar features, deep space objects, etc. Whereas mythology seems more prevalent in Electric Universe concerns. So, I dunno. I guess I've just always thought of cosmology as more all-encompassing than a strictly physical interpretation. Whereas universe seems like more strictly a physical description of objects in nature? Perhaps, though PC has slightly uses of terminology... In that regard, I couldn't tell ya'. God, I hope I didn't just end up saying nothing. ;o] Mgmirkin 00:03, 13 March 2007 (GMT)
• I think the traditional view of "Cosmology" is the "beginning of the universe", and creation of large-scale structure such as galaxies. Of course the plasma universe is more encompassing, and is agnostic on a unique "beginning". And similar processes take place from the smallest to the large scales.
• I'm not sure how to handle petroglyphs and EU yet. I'd don't want the Wiki to be accused of mixing established peer reviewed material with speculative material, but I'm sure we'll find a way.
• Why not simply include written articles like Peratt's? http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/PerattAntiquityZ.pdf That was published in transactions on plasma science and deals with petroglyphs relation to high energy auroral discharge, Stonehenge, among other things. IE, if they're published in the legit literature, shouldn't that satisfy a wikipedia-level "NPOV" & "verifiability" challenge? IE, it's been written in the literature. Perhaps it's not widely circulated/accepted. Nonetheless, it's admissible as a related document from someone reputable in the field. If other similar documents are available online, I wouldn't see why info from them couldn't be utilized, so long as the documents are cited/linked and the source material isn't "abused," as they like to say on Wikipedia. In fact unlike Wikipedia, this forum might not have an objection to a long list of relevant articles and citations of various reputable books on the subject(s) in question. So long as they're legit/reputable sources of good data (as good as any other, yeah?). Granted, we don't want to just go willy-nilly asserting things that aren't true, or have no factual or research basis. But if they have been researched, and we have reliable source documents. That generally satisfied "verifiability" or "sourcing" that comments or hypotheses were made. Perhaps it doesn't definitively prove that the hypotheses are correct. And I might concede that point... Then it's up to us as to what level of verifiability or "correct"-ness we want to have in the wiki? I know on wikipedia there's a bit of a rule: verifiability is generally about sourcing statements reliably, NOT about opinion on whether the statement is correct. Opinion isn't NPOV and violates NOR (no original research). Granted some things we talk about might be considered O.R., by Wikipedia standards, seeing as how it's not openly accepted/taught in "standard model" institutions of higher learning. ;o] Mgmirkin 01:21, 13 March 2007 (GMT)
• Feel free to create any new articles you see fit, and either write from scratch, or take from Wikipedia and edit. --Ian Tresman 01:00, 13 March 2007 (GMT)
• Well, I suppose my main point was simply that cosmology has a few meaning some of which are physical Physical cosmology, some of which are mythological, some are religious (myth and religion being more about humanity's place in the cosmos than necessarily the physical structure). So, toward that end, I tend to think of "cosmology" as a broader category than "universe." IE, cosmology can deal with the physical universe, the metaphysical universe, religion/myth. Whereas simply saying "universe" seems (to me anyway) more like a subset of the fuller "cosmology," dealing only with the physical/scientific. Not saying it's bad, just more limited in what might be discussed?
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology

## Latest attack

• Last's night's attack (13th March) was more serious than the previous one. All the images had been replaced with very large 1-2Mb images, and many of the article had been doubly-redirected between themselves. The results as that not only had the server crashed, but due to the extra load, it crashed Web sites of many of my clients.
• Two proxy servers were used to access the site, one with a fixed IP address (now blocked), and the other which selects a random IP address from a range (hopefully blocked).
• Fortunately my server log has some useful additional information, it's just time consuming to work through.--Ian Tresman 16:47, 13 March 2007 (GMT)
• Oy, what a pain. Seriously folks. If you're listening, knock it off. Not funny, DoS attacks and such are definitely illegal. My suggestion is still a "approved users only" approach. IE, no anonymous IP's. Make folks register and sign in to make changes. Most of the people would likely be folks we already know anyway, and shouldn't have a problem registering? Of course, anonymity is necessary for some folks we know, for professional reasons, etc. Though they could simply use an alias screenname when registering if necessary to protect their privacy. Mgmirkin 17:38, 13 March 2007 (GMT)
• And/or some kind of moderation. IE, can propose changes and edit talk pages to make suggestions, but not directly edit a page unless specifically given edit permissions, etc. OF course that's leaning more toward the paranoid side of restrictivity-ous-ness-ism (sorry, felt I needed to make up an appropriate word for the day)... Mgmirkin 17:49, 13 March 2007 (GMT)

I had yet another spate of 400+ password reminders. They go in through an anonymous proxy, go to the log-in page, and just hit the E-mail password button. I've disabled the button for now until I can put in a counter-measure. --Ian Tresman 01:35, 19 March 2007 (GMT)

• Fair enough, I know my password. :) Got about 50 hits. What's the point, really? Just to annoy? Accomplishes nothing. Mgmirkin 15:17, 19 March 2007 (GMT)