User talk:Cardamon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Source for Biodegradable plastic article 2 Bio-plastics etc. 3 Copy + Paste Moves 4 RfC on UKnewthat 5 Beam dump 6 Thank you 7 Your input is requested 8 Original resarch spotted 9 Testatika AfD 10 useable is a spelling mistake according to AWB and Google. 11 Category deletion 12 Does it matter? 13 Phonons 14 Dawn's ion engines 15 Thanks for that 16 Thanks again 17 Logic receptors

[edit] Source for Biodegradable plastic article

The Biodegradable plastic article has several sentences that are the same or very similar to sentences in this one paragraph source: http://www.bio-tec.biz/biobatch.html . Is it a copyright violation? Or did you perhaps write both sources? Cardamon 15:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote all sources...

FTC Guidlines for environmental or claiming biodegradable. I would suggest you view the article. You can not claim biodegradation if your plastic product can't be thrown in a landfill due to 94.7% of all plastic in the US is thrown there. So you can't claim biodegradable.

2. Degradable/Biodegradable/Photodegradable: It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product or package is degradable, biodegradable or photodegradable. An unqualified claim that a product or package is degradable, biodegradable or photodegradable should be substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence that the entire product or package will completely break down and return to nature, i.e., decompose into elements found in nature within a reasonably short period of time after customary disposal.

Claims of degradability, biodegradability or photodegradability should be qualified to the extent necessary to avoid consumer deception about: (a) the product or package's ability to degrade in the environment where it is customarily disposed; and (b) the rate and extent of degradation.

3. Compostable: It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product or package is compostable. An unqualified claim that a product or package is compostable should be substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence that all the materials in the product or package will break down into, or otherwise become part of, usable compost (e.g., soil-conditioning material, mulch) in a safe and timely manner in an appropriate composting program or facility, or in a home compost pile or device.

Claims of compostability should be qualified to the extent necessary to avoid consumer deception. An unqualified claim may be deceptive: (1) if municipal composting facilities are not available to a substantial majority of consumers or communities where the package is sold; (2) if the claim misleads consumers about the environmental benefit provided when the product is disposed of in a landfill; or (3) if consumers misunderstand the claim to mean that the package can be safely composted in their home compost pile or device, when in fact it cannot.

Example 1: A manufacturer indicates that its unbleached coffee filter is compostable. The unqualified claim is not deceptive provided the manufacturer can substantiate that the filter can be converted safely to usable compost in a timely manner in a home compost pile or device, as well as in an appropriate composting program or facility.

Example 2: A lawn and leaf bag is labeled as "Compostable in California Municipal Yard Waste Composting Facilities." The bag contains toxic ingredients that are released into the compost material as the bag breaks down. The claim is deceptive if the presence of these toxic ingredients prevents the compost from being usable.

Example 3: A manufacturer indicates that its paper plate is suitable for home composting. If the manufacturer possesses substantiation for claiming that the paper plate can be converted safely to usable compost in a home compost pile or device, this claim is not deceptive even if no municipal composting facilities exist.

Example 4: A manufacturer makes an unqualified claim that its package is compostable. Although municipal composting facilities exist where the product is sold, the package will not break down into usable compost in a home compost pile or device. To avoid deception, the manufacturer should disclose that the package is not suitable for home composting.

Example 5: A nationally marketed lawn and leaf bag is labeled "compostable." Also printed on the bag is a disclosure that the bag is not designed for use in home compost piles. The bags are in fact composted in municipal yard waste composting programs in many communities around the country, but such programs are not available to a substantial majority of consumers where the bag is sold. The claim is deceptive since reasonable consumers living in areas not served by municipal yard waste programs may understand the reference to mean that composting facilities accepting the bags are available in their area. To avoid deception, the claim should be qualified to indicate the limited availability of such programs, for example, by stating, "Appropriate facilities may not exist in your area." Other examples of adequate qualification of the claim include providing the approximate percentage of communities or the population for which such programs are available.

Example 6: A manufacturer sells a disposable diaper that bears the legend, "This diaper can be composted where municipal solid waste composting facilities exist. There are currently [X number of] municipal solid waste composting facilities across the country." The claim is not deceptive, assuming that composting facilities are available as claimed and the manufacturer can substantiate that the diaper can be converted safely to usable compost in municipal solid waste composting facilities.

Example 7: A manufacturer markets yard waste bags only to consumers residing in particular geographic areas served by county yard waste composting programs. The bags meet specifications for these programs and are labeled, "Compostable Yard Waste Bag for County Composting Programs." The claim is not deceptive. Because the bags are compostable where they are sold, no qualification is required to indicate the limited availability of composting facilities.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/grnrule/guides92.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Callsign (talk • contribs) 05:46, 6 September 2006

Thanks for the reply and the URL. What has happened to your User page? Cardamon 23:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bio-plastics etc.

Hi, Mrs Trellis. About your recent edit to Biodegradable plastic, I'd just like to point out that "tons" is perfectly good spelling in the United States of America. So is "metabolize", which you changed in a previous edit to that page. Of course, you also eliminated some genuine mistakes. This is really no big deal, but I thought I'd mention it. Cardamon 23:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Noted your comments about my edits - I changes tons to tonnes only because they are the internationally accepted SI units for this measure of mass and as they so closely align with tons it seemed to make more sense - especially as the plastic indiustry is international. I changed metabolize to metabolise because I had thought that the original authorship was a brit using Commonwealth English . I may have been mistaken in which case my apologies - just trying to keep articles within WP guidelines ! Mrs Trellis 08:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. I'm okay with tonnes. I have no idea what Callsign's nationality is. Bio-Tec Environmental, to which s/he keeps inserting references, is located in the state of New Mexico. I notice that s/he replied here to my question about copyright by saying that s/he had "written all sources". Cardamon 20:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copy + Paste Moves

Please do not make copy+paste moves between articles. At the top of every page in Wikipedia, you will find a move button. Feel free to use it when correcting a simple spelling mistake in an article. Regards alphaChimp^(talk) 04:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed your error. See Hieronymus machine. alphaChimp^(talk) 04:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that. I'll do it that way next time. Cardamon 04:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries. A lot of people don't know. alphaChimp^(talk) 04:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on UKnewthat

Just wondering what you think of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Uknewthat? Cardamon 08:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cardamon, as I've taken admin action and may have to take more, it's best that I don't get involved in the RfC. Thanks for letting me know about it though. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beam dump

Thanks for your work on the subject. I had never heard of a beam dump for charged particles, but in retrospect, their existence should have been obvious. It looks pretty good already; I had imagined it would sit around a lot longer when I first wrote it. --Joel 08:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your support. Results are at Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins#Durova. Warmly, Durova 14:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original resarch spotted

According to your report on Feb. 9. 2007, you spotted an original research in the following text:

Before the present general relativistic cosmological model was developed, Albert Einstein proposed a way to fix his so far incomplete equations by adding to them a constant. The constant would come to be known later as the cosmological constant. It is a necessary part of Einstein's equations till today.

One might note, that there exists an opinion among those astrophysicists and cosmologists who still think in terms of Newtonian physics that Einstein added his cosmological constant to dynamically stabilize a cosmological scenario that would necessarily collapse in on itself due to the gravitational attraction of the matter constituents in the universe. Since, as they would put it, such a universe would need a source of "anti-gravity" to balance out the mutual attraction. However, in Einstein's theory there is no mutual gravitational attraction in the world so there was no danger for the universe to collapse. The cosmological constant was then a way of fixing the math of the equations to reflect this fact. It is similar to a contant of integration that is added to a solution of any integral to reflect particular physical conditions (in this case the assumed by Einstein the stability of the universe). The cosmological constant were put back to zero by cosmologists who took charge of maintaining the general relativity after Einstein turned his attention to other projects. They wanted to reflect their idea that the observed in 1928 expansion of the universe will slow down due to the gravitational attraction of the matter constituents in the universe. The cosmological constant was restored back after astronomical observations proved in 1998 that the the observed expansion of the universe is not slowing down but accelerating.

Would you mind telling me which part of this text is original research according to you? (Note that the text in italics is left from the previous version to clarify the issue) Jim 15:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Testatika AfD

Hi, in this edit, you wrote "... this bloated farrago of speculation, bollocks, unreliable sources, and reliable but not irrelevant sources...". Given what you had written in the first half of that sentence, and what others (particularly EMS) had said elsewhere, I would have expected you to mean "unreliable sources, and reliable but not relevant sources... ". Although of course I may have misunderstood your intention. Regards, — BillC ^talk 17:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

BillC, thanks for pointing that out. Cardamon 20:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] useable is a spelling mistake according to AWB and Google.

Google and AWB Typo list ~~ AVTN ^{T C}_{V A} 21:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am going to raise this issue with AWB, I am sorry if it has caused any inconveniences. Can you please check here, and add anything extra you would want to add.~~ AVTN ^{T C}_{V A} 16:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Cardamon 00:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category deletion

I'm not sure what I think. I created the category because there was a problem with certain subjects being categorized solely as scientific/pseudoscientific when there was more subtlety than that. I never particularly cared for the category's title, but I think there is a need for such a category to include the wide range of fringe science that is ignored by the mainstream. --ScienceApologist 00:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does it matter?

Not sure if this edit was addressed to me or to Nondistinguished? Cardamon 05:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

She wrote very well, she was treated very poorly, and you didn't provide references to support what you were saying. Does it really matter any more? I am tired of excellent editors being treated like shit on Wikipedia by people who own areas. Then reading web blogs about how crappy Wikipedia is in certain areas, thinking, no, that's not right, we have the new editor who's been working in this area for a few months now who writes so well, something's going on. And what's going on is we no longer have that editor. You don't seem to care, though, so I'm not sure why you asked me this. KP Botany 05:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

To start with, I was supporting LidiaFourdraine and saying that her article on Fluid physics should be kept. I'm puzzled about whether or not you understand that. Cardamon 06:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Then I apologize and thank you for seeing that she was contributing excellent material to Wikipedia. Although it doesn't excuse my mixing up editors, I'm getting too fed up with Wikipedia editors chasing away other damned fine editors. Her initial article on fluid physics was very well written, and I was stunned and disappointed to see it redirected to gibberish inappopriately written for Wikipedia. KP Botany 19:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phonons

Glad to help! --Slashme 11:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dawn's ion engines

Your removal of the factoid about NASA's first use of ion drive in an exploratory mission in the Dawn spacecraft was in error. If you read the details of Deep Space 1 carefully, you'll see it was a technology demonstrator, not an exploratory mission. Even though some space environment measurements were taken during the Delta 1 flight, those were secondary goals. Dawn was NASA's first mission where ion engines were used operationally. —Quicksilver^{T @} 02:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for that

This'll teach me to cut and paste without looking. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks again

You always catch my errors. I want you on team Zissou.

I looked it over and realized that it was probably overboard. Today has been exhausting. Homeopathy supporters seem to be appearing out of the woodwork. If I have to write one more time that homeopathic remedies don't actually contain the substances that they are "based" on...

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So far all I've joined on Wikipedia is Wikiproject Physics; I don't see myself joining anything else soon. Cardamon (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Now you should learn something about it. The first thing that one should learn is that it is better to have more than one hypotheses to ponder on espacially when they exclude one another and one is not sure which one is true.

E.g. the hypothesis of expanding universes can't explain (observed) conservation of energy, (observed) , (observed) H₀ = 70km / s / Mpc, if density of space is , why acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11 is , why we see quasars of large redshifts connected to galaxies with small redshifts, how we may calculate the average size of pieces of dark matter (2 m across). In fact, why we can't predict so far (after 80 years of trying) any new phenomenon (and some we tried to predict turned out to be observed opposite to what we predicted) while we can so easily predict so many phenomena, observed within one standard deviation, old and new, assuming that the universe is stationary. Would it be that our theory of expanding universe is wrong?

However if difficulty with prediction of all those things that I mentioned doesn't bother you then the idea of joining Wikiproject Physics might not have been such a good idea, since you are surely not a physicist by nature. A physicist, as Feynman said, should question his theory in every possible way, even if it produces right results every time. Apparently you don't have those qualities since you rather remove from wikipedia things that bother you or you don't understand them. Jim (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are responding to this edit. For now, I will just make two comments:

1. Your Geocities website still does not qualify as a reliable source.
2. Wikipedia is still not for pushing original research. Please stop doing it. Cardamon (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

		Appreciation Barnstar
		Awarded to Cardamon for an exceptional act of clear-headed rationality in the face of cowardly acts of authority in the Gibbs-Heaviside AfD. For honestly demonstrating to me that it's not whether I or you or he or she or whoever win or lose, but how all of us play the game. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to Cardamon by --Firefly322 (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Logic receptors

Well spotted. I'm sure you're right - it bears all the marks of a hoax. I was just preparing an AfD, but I see you've PRODded it; if that gets challenged, I will certainly support an AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)