User talk:Bci2

Wikipedia:Babel

en-5

This user can contribute with a professional level of English.

fr-4

Cet utilisateur parle français à un niveau comparable à la langue maternelle.

it-4

Quest'utente utente ha una conoscenza da madrelingua dell'italiano.

ro

Acest utilizator este un vorbitor nativ al limbii române.

This user uses Windows 7

This user contributes using Windows 7.

This user contributes using Linux.

This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

Search user languages

This user is a participant in WikiProject Physics.

This user is a participant in
WikiProject Mathematics.

This user participates in
WikiProject Biography.

New messages

This is the new location for posting new Talk messages. (The old site became too cluttered by old messsages).

DNA Dynamics: New discussion items

This entry has been unfortunately and mistakenly been merged with the entry on Molecular models of DNA, which is of course a significantly different topic, and it should be thus re-instated to a separate entry status.

Help

Hi, I'm posting this on your (and other members of the Maths Wikiproject) talk as we need editors who are knowledgeable about Mathematics to evaluate the following discussion and check out the editors and articles affected. Please follow the link below and comment if you can help.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_-_uninvolved_admin_request.

Thankyou. Exxolon (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Reply to Help

Yes, of course. It would help to have some links to high priority mathematics articles that require immediate attention. Bci2 05:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved page

I have moved Bci2/Book/Dynamics to User:Bci2/Book/Dynamics -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Me•MyEars•[[

- Thank you for moving the page: sorry about the error. User: Bci2

A thought experiment (QM) question

Hi,

I saw that you are a physicist, and did quite a few very reasonable edits. I wonder if you could possibly comment on a thought experiment I've been pondering about. It's on the Wikipedia sister project - Wikiversity - here: [1] Thanks. --Dc987 (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok-will attempt to do so

Hey, Thanks! And if there is some simple fallacy in it, please don't hesitate to point it out. (I'm a CS graduate and I only had a few overview courses on quantum mechanics and quantum information theory. Out of my field I'm easily could be wrong, or worse - "not even wrong".) --Dc987 (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Have already posted a Thought experiment on your talk page for the limit T---> 0 deg K that provides some hints to the role of device configuration and microscopic entropy in the quantum measurement process.

May I also suggest that you post your question and thought experiments at: http://planetphysics.org/ where it is likely to receive more attention.

Image galleries

Hi Bci2. I noticed you added a large number of images in image galleries to Molecular models of DNA. I'm concerned that having so many images is against the image guidelines and makes the article hard to read. I think that it would be best to keep only the most relevant images (and perhaps move some of them to other articles), and have them be inline with the text, as is the standard style, rather than in galleries. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Antony-22 (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

===Response=== Overall, Antony-22, I agree that the number of figures in the last two galleries can be selected to be smaller. However, the steps in the structure determination and molecular modeling section in Gallery 2 would be very hard to follow in a "choppy" fashion, figure by figure in-line. It also is a useful device for in-class presentation as Power Point slides for teachers and graduate students, etc.

Perhaps some of the figures could be transferred to an in-line mode, especially those that are hard to read by being too small. The in-line mode control codes are a bit hard to handle. Any help with the handling of the in-line would be much appreciated. Thank you for your suggestions. Will gradually work to an improved version or versions, but the entry here would also become too long if only in-line were used, and less logically connected; moreover, this new entry is the result of an (unwise) previous condensation of two different entries in Wikipedia by other contributors, without my consent, either implicit or explicit.Bci2 15:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, being that this is an article about molecular models of DNA, that a gallery of the models themselves at the end of the article would be appropriate given the image gallery guidelines. However, as an encyclopedia Wikipedia is not the right place for images formatted as slide shows; I think that Wikiversity, a sister project of Wikipedia, is a better place for that and I'd encourage you to contribute there. For articles, the guideline is that if there are so many images that there isn't enough text to flow around them, we should either have fewer images or write more text.

In this case, I think it would be best to expand your captions into paragraphs and then select the most relevant images to become inline images, moving actual images of DNA to the end, and removing the rest or moving them to other articles. I really think that the galleries as they currently exist make the article hard to read, and are not in line with the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. I may start this process soon if I have time, and I'd like to hear your comments on the results. Antony-22 (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've taken a crack at editing it down, let me know what you think. You mentioned that you find the inline images a bit hard to handle; I agree it can be tricky if you have a lot of images. Wikipedia:Extended image syntax and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial are good resources on how to use the image syntax to your advantage, and one interesting trick is to use Template:Multiple image, which places two images side-by-side. Hopefully these will be of use to you. Antony-22 (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice update

Thank you Antony-22 for the improvements made. However a few images that were key are missing from the Gallery-- How can I recover those images from the removed galleries from the talk page of the article? I know it should be possible but I forget how to recover the previous version of the Talk page of that article.Bci2 10:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I have moved them over here: Talk:Molecular models of DNA/Galleries#Second batch.

- - Very much appreciate this link because I should re-instate a few figures needed in the original entry. Am also very impressed with your editing abilities that have significantly improved the readability of this entry for the average Wikipedia reader. Please also note that I have saved the current entry in PDF format as part of a much larger book to which it belongs. Thanks again for very helpful comments and additions! Bci2 18:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed you've been having some issues with copyrights on image uploads. It's important to only upload images that have the proper permissions (see WP:ICT/FL). I've posted some links below of journal publishers whose articles are available under free licenses; it is generally okay to upload images from these sources. There is a further list of sources at Wikipedia:Free image resources.

PLoS: CC Att 2.5
BioMed Central: CC Att 2.0
Hindawi: CC Att
Environmental Health Perspectives: Public domain-US Gov't
See [2] for older periodicals with expired copyrights

Hope these help. Antony-22 (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - All the images that I have uploaded had proper copyright permissions, but I am not very familiar with the ever changing policies on various types of licenses at this site that are hard to follow and implement on this site. Therefore, I find your listing of such sites to be very helpful. My problem concerning uploading images for which I have the copyright permissions that are legally required, and that are not already in Wikipedia Commons, is mostly with the contents of the WP:ICT/FL) --that I find it hard to follow or implement in most cases as it is not specific enough. Thank you again for your help.

CCI Process

Although you were notified by GrahamHardy of the Contributor Copyright Investigation before it was opened, at the bottom of the page [3], I'm not sure if you noticed it, since it may have seemed part of the letter above it. In conducting a CCI, we typically evaluate the articles to which a contributor has added text as well as examining any images that he or she may have added to the project. This is why I was looking at Molecular models of DNA in the first place. The first of the articles listed at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Bci2 is DNA dynamics, and when looking at that content I realized that your copyright had been infringed by Hari Prakash Tawari. I marked Talk:DNA dynamics and Talk:Molecular models of DNA with the "backwards copyvio" tag so that future contributors would not become confused by the similarity into thinking that you had infringed copyright in that article yourself.

If you look at that list, you will be able to see clearly where contributors believe they have found problems and where they do not. Those articles and images which have been found clear will typically be marked N, while those in which potential problems have been detected will be marked Y. If you are interested in addressing any potential problems found, you will need to keep an eye on the progress of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Bci2. Once contributors have finished going through that list, the page will be blanked in courtesy to you; we presume problems with the copyright policy are usually unintended. If it is blanked before you have a chance to see what was done, you can find out simply by going into the history. The last version of the page before blanking will show what actions were taken.

There is a possibility that someone else will have copied from you and that content will be mistakenly marked as a copyright problem. We take every step we can to avoid this by cross-checking archive dates and looking for other clues, but by the time a CCI is opened, there have been enough verified instances of concerns that we default to safety by eliminating content we cannot prove is legally usable on Wikipedia. I realize that this in particular may be distressing to you, and I am sorry for it, but our mandate is to keep the project clear of copyright violations, and our policies are designed to ensure that we do. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to user-space pages from articles

User:Bci2/2D-FT NMRI and Spectroscopy is a nice looking piece of work, but it's presently a userspace item, not in the formal "main" article-space of Wikipedia. That's a place for drafts and other private experimentation/works-in-progress, so it's best not to link to it from actual articles. If it's appropriate to be a Wikipedia article and eventually moved into mainspace, linking to it would definitely be encouraged. DMacks (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fraţii Buzeşti High School

Please don't add names to lists of names unless the articles exist first. And be sure they meet the requirements of WP:RS. WP:BLP and WP:BIO. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Fraţii Buzeşti High School, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.

And you're a reviewer? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not original research. Please see cited references and also links. More will be added.

What references prove that these people exist, that they are notable, and that they meet WP:BIO? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a template which requests sources is vandalism. I have listed this at WP:3O. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI warning

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Lists_of_names_of_non-notable_people. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the names. Please review our WP:Biographies of living persons policy, especially those sections concerning privacy, and ensure that you do not reinsert the names of anyone who does not have an article on the English Wikipedia into any alumni list. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to previous queries above

I am sorry that you are incorrect: the names in this section are listed in Wikipedia already, but have not all been translated into English, and are all clearly documented by references given. Furthermore not all alumni listed here--that you have incorrectly erased-- are living persons as stated in your deletion mesasage. An example of many in this list is as follows: Ilie G. Murgulescu (n. 27 ianuarie 1902, Cornu, județul Dolj - d. 28 octombrie 1991, București) a fost un chimist român, membru titular al Academiei Române. deceased in 1991 Bci2 03:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to try to be clearer. Each person on a list of persons must have an article on the English Wikipedia. If they need to be translated, you may add them to the list after, not before, you have done so. Continuing to reinsert the names will lead to a block from editing. I don't want to do that, but you're not leaving a whole lot of choice here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the reply above in which I have clearly indicated that 1. There are in the original list names already in the English Encyclopedia, and 2. Not all alumni listed are living as shown in the above example. Bci2 03:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please wikilink to the articles on the people, then, instead of utilizing external links or links to other language projects, for any person who is living? As to those who are provably deceased, you are correct that they would not fall under BLP. I would not object to you adding only them (though others may on content grounds, but that's a different issue). Please ensure that the person is confirmed to be deceased through a reliable source, however. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're violating WP:3RR. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP reverts have nothing to do with 3RR, and two is less than three. However, I've no wish to further revert you. It seems we've come to an agreement on how to move forward, so let's do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you. It will take a little time though.

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Notif. changes

Ok,thank you, I may want to contact you about the workaround availableBci2 15:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of European CNRS Franco-Romanian Associated Laboratories

The article European CNRS Franco-Romanian Associated Laboratories has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No independent sources, not otable. Does not meet WP:GNG.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Crusio (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Romania

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in contributing to WikiProject Romania. It is a project aimed at organizing and improving the quality and accuracy of articles related to Romania. Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Codrin, if time allows, and if there are not too extensive erasings of valuable/valid contents.

POV?

Bci2, please have a look at Talk:Magic_angle_spinning#POV_problem?. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no POV!

ok

Bci2 03:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Gabriel–Popesco theorem for Ab5-categories

The article Gabriel–Popesco theorem for Ab5-categories has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Seemingly non-notable. No refs, while the two external links that work go to pages that give no indication of notability or context, or a clue as to where, when or by who it was proved.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gabriel–Popesco theorem for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gabriel–Popesco theorem is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel–Popesco theorem until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:PlanetPhysics, is considered bad practice, even if you meant it well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!