And the latest

There's no need to write any books or join any author forums. Just go on wikipedia and introduce a constant named after yourself and you've got it all made!

It seems this will go on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Abdul_Ahad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crowsnest#Edit_warring

and on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apparent_magnitude#Ahad.27s_constant

and on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_science_fiction_authors#Abdul_Ahad

and on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apparent_magnitude&action=history

Ahad,
seems someone got it in for you, however given time, your discovery will be recognized.
Trying to belittle your book as vanity published, is hitting below the belt.

Try to look on the positive side. Your name is being discussed and in an off hand way, promoted.

If this constant and my listing is not accepted on Wikipedia then I think it's time to head back into the underworld.

This society is being driven by an evil culture where people are thrown into the gladiator ring and left to run like a dog or die... while others take spectacle from your struggles. Of course we all know that, and we love getting ourselves shafted!

To write another 20 peer reviewed scientific articles to prove my worth. Prove my worth to whom? Those freaks out there who have no social life, sitting like miserable gits in esteemed academic institutions? I'd probably decide to lie back on the sofa and pet my cat instead...hear it purring and meaowing while I sip my tea in front of the television...

The only time you need to worry is if some of these posers don't spell your name right.

Bad publicity is better than no publicity, and they are actually doing you a favor by making their silly posts. It means that your name will get more hits every time someone searches for it.

Ahad just take comfort from the fact that even Einstien was laughed at in the beginning. Didn't he show them

I'm so sorry, Ahad. I know how it feels to be belittled by 'The Establishment,' and no matter what, it hurts.

You're thinking of giving up because Wikipedia wouldn't accept your listing. I understand. That's how I felt when my local library wouldn't accept my first novel, Ten Times Guilty, as a donation because it was from a 'vanity press.'

But we just have to keep on keeping on, getting so darn famous that they'll want us.

I know it's small comfort, but as Abe said, at least they're discussing you. Don't know if that's good or bad, but at least your name's out there.

Fame ain't all it's cracked up to be. John Dillinger said that.

Don't let 'em discourage you, Ahad. Those types are pathetic creatures.

Thank you all for your comiserations, I appreciate it.

How do I know that these guys are *paid*, professional, industrial sockpuppets hired by corporations? Come on, you don't have people editing by this kind of volume of pages per day just for the love of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Martin451[/quote]

Ahad,
You are so right

You suffer from the same "crackpot" labeling as my good friend "mentifex" whose AI diagram is ubiquitous on the web. In fact, his mentions on Wikipedia have been DELETED.

All you can do is what he does: ignore it and keep happily chortling along cracking people's pots for them. Illegitimi non carborundum

Having your name on wikipedia is, actually, a claim to fame. It's the sort of thing fame consists of: public publication of your name.

And speaking of publication, there is this problem that those who don't publish in "respected academic journals" are not taken seriously. (Sound familiar to anybody?")

It militates heavily against the outsider, the backyard inventor (Edison didn't publish papers in journals), the talented amateur (like amost the entire pre-Edwardian scientific establishment, or the inconoclasts, synthesists and visionaries.

The idea that you have to have a PhD and university-based journal recoqnition to contribute to a field has RUINED philosophy, turned it into a branch of mathematics. Contemporary philosophers are more likely to have best-sellers than journal entries.

A hippie physicist in the sixties actually printed his theories of Einsteinian gravitational physics in a COMiC BOOK. The cover showed Albert shirtless, bulging with muscles, leaning on a sword with scantily clad princesses hugging his legs and loins.

Lin said:

Quote :

Having your name on wikipedia is, actually, a claim to fame. It's the sort of thing fame consists of: public publication of your name.

Cool.

I am listed, as I've mentioned before, as Ann Livingston Joiner (note middle name is misspelled) as a source for additional information on Joseph Campbell, on his Wikipedia page, for my book, A Myth in Action: The Heroic Life of Audie Murphy, which uses Campbell as a major source.

Ann

Ann,
I'm also listed in the Beirut section of Wikepedia under literature.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beirut. It's at the very bottom of the page.

ALJ, that's a serious achievement. I'd keep an eye on the page though, in case someone comes along and edits you out.

Wikipedia is not as powerful now as it will be in the future. It represents a statement of majority consensus. Material randomly scattered on the internet carries very little weight, as it is only a minority view. Wikipedia is supposed to represent a worldview on various subjects that have been debated and accepted amongst the masses.

Therefore, what's on Wikipedia is what will prevail...regardless of whether you or I would want to buy it.

That's the power of Wikipedia .


And if that power gives you more pornography on the internet than you want, you better get out there on Wikipedia and voice your concerns on the relevant pages now .

Wikipedia can't be any good. I ain't on it.

People are quick to dump on Wikipedia these days, it having come to their attention that it's not perfect.

What makes me giggle is the idea that "real" encyclopedias and dictionaries ARE perfect. Got bad news about that.

The wiki, and all pedias are an incredible, concentrated, accessible source of information.

They are not a source of authority. People who want to back up arguments instead of just inform themselves are the ones that always whine about it being rigged.

You can go put yourself on it. Or take somebody off. That's what it is.

Another reason not to let it getcha, man.

Dick Stodghill wrote:

Wikipedia can't be any good. I ain't on it.

Oh, yes you are!
http://www.publishedauthors.org/mandinam-press-f29/when-you-make-it-you-re-on-wikipedia-t1408.htm

Shhhh... we should keep this one quiet!

Wikipedia is a quick source of information. If it is used as a source of reference for something important, then more in depth research is advisable.
As Ahad mentioned, inaccurate information should be brought to the attention of Wikipedia. And, if one feels important information is missing, they can offer additional facts. The source for this new information will be challenged and checked.
In some cases where they have some beef, as with Ahad's discovery, it will require continued effort to force a change.

Ahad, I heard on the radio yesterday that a comet presently visible in the night sky was discovered by a 19 year old student.

You say your constant is there. They say it isn't, because your book isn't published by a big publisher and you don't have articles in lots of journals. It has been a long time since I took a science course, but their opinions sound like strange scientific method to me.

I believe your Constant is real.

Carol

Thank you Abe and Carol for your kind words, both speaking from a totally neutral point of view of course.

David Oesper is a real astronomer and a brilliant one at that. I did not know him until I e-mailed him personally only last week, and I still have his reply in my inbox. His weekly astronomy column, The Sky this Week, is a widely respected astronomy publication that is read by astronomers both amateur and professional alike. It has been running for over the last 10 years and here is the latest version:

http://www.skythisweek.info/

David only keeps the latest 7 weeks of his sky notes live on the internet. The historical information for weeks, months and years preceding that he keeps archived off-line. For the week of October 23, 2008, he featured the constant and radius as noted here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apparent_magnitude#Total_integrated_magnitude_of_the_night_sky

Of which I kept an archive copy here:

http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagent/ahads_sphere.htm

So this has been published by a third party, reliable source, and as such, it should be on Wikipedia without dispute.

Of course it's a neutral point of view.

After all, we know you Ahad, and that's all the credentials we need to know you're on to something.

Well done.

Carol

Hi All,

Skimming the Wikipedia edit-warring, my perception is that some didn’t want to accept the physics constant as fact because they couldn’t find enough academic credentials on record to make them comfortable accepting it as fact, and none of them are physicists themselves. IMO, this is reasonable. Wikipedia, like it or not, is now a tremendously heavily utilized reference source. The volunteer editors are trying to make it a credible source. I’ve added things that have been promptly deleted. Whether I thought the deletion was fair or not is irrelevant. The ones devoting countless trying to make it a world-class reference are the ones who get to decide. Their decisions are spotty and inconsistent, and some editors are kind of unbalanced –they’ll follow you around, deleting everything you write if they get a bug up their butts about you- but it is what it is.

Ahad, if having your constant accepted as fact is important to you, why not direct your energies into proposing it to peer-review journals? You say you don’t want to do another 20, but apparently the editors couldn’t find the first 20.

Of course, if this is just a thread to commiserate, then I apologize. BTW, the word “gits” cracks me up. I love Brit-speak!

I tried, tried, tried again, then gave up.

Here's a topic going back to December 2004:-

http://www.astronomyforum.net/uk-astronomy-forum/54674-spaceflight-journals-recording-my-works-science.html

That's when I decided I can't handle this anymore. Thereafter I chose to write a couple of novels instead...

You may be better off with novels. All they require is that readers like them.

You might actually be able to use this stuff for your own advantage, a little astrokicking judo.

"The web's bad boy of astrophysics"

"The theorist The Man doesn't want you to hear"

"Academicians vs Scifi"



Seriously, you could play that line of goods into publicity for your novels.

When people bash Mentifex as a crackpot he posts links to their comments in his posts and site.