User talk:SCZenz/Archive5

vote on merger

Hi, you should vote on the merger of the Higgs boson article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Higgs_boson Rotiro 06:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Baryogenesis

Hi, can you see Talk:Baryogenesis#Probable April Fools information removed. Expert advice needed! Thanks. –Joke 15:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Note from Jazzy

Hey glad to hear from you. This is Jazzy. Admittedly, I am extremely frustrated with user dcandeto, and my actions have been less than perfect, but I wrote an article for a journalism class on a well known guy named Cody Hedman, and Dcandeto hounded on it until it was deleted. I felt I did not get ample time to discuss the article before it was taken down. I admit I made several accounts trying to get around dcandeto. Firstly, I created Cdub1985 a run off of the guy I wrote about, and then jazzy 006, jazzy 007, and I got my friends to try and keep it on. Honestly, my attacks against dcandeto have been stupid and anger motivated, and attempting to delete his article was an act of frustration but I do not feel he asserted the importance of the writer he wrote about. Honestly, what I wrote was not a vanity article, and I just thought it would be cool to have an article on wiki but the way I was so quickly attacked and had nothing explained to me was unreasonable and I retaliated. You know I treated dcandeto bad, but I feel he should be more understanding and helpful towards newcomers instead of trying to delete work ASAP. Thanks. Jazzy.

Supernova Cosmology Project

Hey there. I noticed when I created the Supernova Cosmology Project page that you had a link to it from your user page already! I've thrown up a very very basic bit on it, if you have anything you'd like to add (and there's pleanty that could be added in), well... Now you know it exists! Best regards, --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

That was a serious offer, by the way

Over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion I wrote:

"If you seriously believe there is a 'best face' to the opposition, tell me where I can find it in the peer-reviewed or proceedings literature. If you do not know of any such paper, I invite you to write one yourself. I will upload it to LENR-CANR if you like, even though our usual policy is to reprint papers published elsewhere. I will make an exception for you, or any other skeptic."

That's 100% serious. If you want to go to the trouble to write something, I promise to upload it. Furthermore I promise I will not change one word of it, or censor it in any way. LENR-CANR is a library, not a journal. We accept any paper from either side of the debate. We have uploaded strongly anti-cold fusion papers, and we will upload more if the authors submit them.

Having said that, to make a fully honest disclosure, I must admit we have rejected two or three papers, for reasons having nothing to do with content that would not apply to you:

Two had handwritten graphs or indecipherable text and equations that I do not want to try to OCR.

One was about a subject I judged unrelated to cold fusion. The author agreed, and published it elsewhere.

While I promise I will not censor your paper, I may make some friendly suggestions. Naturally, you are free to ignore them. I might also commission someone to write a rebuttal, or I might write one myself. If it is okay with you, we would include your text and the rebuttal in one document, for the convenience of the reader. That is what we did with Morrison versus Fleischmann. If you do not like that idea we will make two separate documents. --JedRothwell 20:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Cold fusion reply

Thank you for your personal message on my user page. I realize that the discussion on cold fusion must have been painful, and probably on both side of the controversy. I contributed to the cold fusion article back in 2004 before it became Featured Article, and I wish it had remain a high quality article.

My personal belief is that it is now wrong to position the subject as pathological science. As you suggest, terminology must be clarified to get a common view. I agree that low energy nuclear reaction can be misleading, because nobody really knows what this effect really is, and whether it is (traditional) nuclear fusion. Maybe we should call it X-energy (as X-rays was used when it was discovered): everybody would then be happy. Unfortunately, no published articles seems to utilize this word, so I guess we can't use it on Wikipedia. Yet, if we could all agree that there are some evidence that something strange seems to be going on, it would be already a great step forward.

I now have the impression that you accept that something strange is going on, and that you accept that we say it in a NPOV way in the article. Would you accept that we copy this discussion back on the cold fusion talk page ? I believe it would help align everybody. Pcarbonn 21:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Totallydisputed tag in Cold fusion

Thank you for your comment. I think your addidtion of the totallydisputed tag to Cold fusion is wrong for a number of reasons:

• You claim that there are POV issues, but have not articulated what you think they are;
• You claim that there is a factual dispute, and point to the DoE review, but that review proves there is no scientific consensus on the issue, on a 2-to-1 split;
• Both sides of the controversy are represented in the article -- you have not claimed that they are not; and
• You have refused to say why you think that the unreviewed editorial comments of a few general science journals are more "mainstream" than the peer-reviewed publications in specialized fusion and electrochemistry journals which have been frequently publishing cold fusion articles for the past several years.

I don't see how you can expect to be treated in good faith when you do not respond to these points. It is frustrating and confusing to see someone add a tag, let alone the totallydisputed tag, to an article which has been balanced by continual back-and-forth editing by supporters and detractors alike. If someone had come in and deleted all the comments on one side of the issue immediately prior to your adding the tag, then it would make sense, but it seems to me that you are only showing that you have not actually read the article. If you have read the article, and you believe the tag that you are adding, then why aren't you able to respond to the above points? I will, as a courtesy, leave that tag up on the article until at least this evening, but if you haven't justifed it by then, I will remove it again. Please reply to this on Talk:Cold fusion, and not here or on my userpage. --James S. 20:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Someone who I know from a completely unrelated controversy asked me what this was all about, and here is how I explained it to him. I hope this helps you understand my perspective:

The problem with the Cold fusion article is that there is a controversy, and people on both sides of it have been editing it fairly carefully, and I think it's balanced, and then someone comes along and objects to the idea, because it was controversial back in the early '90s, then faded away, then made a quiet comeback in the science journals. It's hard to deal with the situation because the editors of Nature and Scientific American frequently trash-talk the subject, while about 10-30 papers get published in peer-reviewed electrochemistry and fusion journals each year. It seems like Wikipedia is in a great position to solve the problem, but when someone slaps a {{totallydisputed}} on top of the article, it really can't help. --James S. 21:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Radiate gluon.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Radiate gluon.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Drat (Talk) 12:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You had me worried, but I see it's just that you cleaned up the image and replaced it with a png. Thanks! -- SCZenz 18:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

your question on XANES discussion

Dear administrator SCZenz,

Conserning your question on XANES. For your infoimation I have made my PhD working on XANES microscopy at ESRF with best regards Matteo

Wikipedia talk:Fair use

Hi. I just wanted to make it crystal-clear that I was just goofing with Gmaxwell here, and not in any way trying to indicate that your question wasn't worth serious discussion. Jkelly 02:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community Justice

You make so many contribs to WP:CJ, but I don't see you are registered. I ask you to register as you contribute so much. :D Computerjoe's talk 20:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's cool. I would ask for your suggestions on the talk page on how to improve. Computerjoe's talk 07:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

CERN acronym

I quickly checked some websites and must admit that I can find both names on so-called official pages :

- http://www.auditmypc.com/acronym/CERN.asp - http://www.interet-general.info/article.php3?id_article=6795 - http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_Europ%C3%A9en_pour_la_Recherche_Nucl%C3%A9aire - http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/index.php?menu=sinformer&sousmenu=revue&page=article&id=72&num=27 - http://cisad.adc.education.fr/reperes/public/sigle/default.htm - http://www.norvege.no/education/research/cooperation/international.htm

I know some people who work at the CERN Institute in Geneva and I remember them talking about their work at the "Centre européen ..." instead of the "Organisation ..."

I do not have more sources to convince you. Maybe it is more complete to add a small reference to the eventually false idea of many that CERN does not stand for "Centre" but for "Organisation".

Freedom

Given the confusion, which I think is caused by it being an easy mistake to make, I will continue to use the websites of cern itself ([1]) as the authoritative source for what the acronym means. -- SCZenz 15:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Black hole electron

Hi SCZens; First I want to express appreciation for your work on "Black hole electron". Do you plan any firther research on this? Have you seen Burinskii's work on this?

Wish you the best; DonJStevens 16:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Jessica LeCroy

Have replied on my talk page. _→AzaToth 04:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I was aware and was nominating based on being a nn advertisement and put that as more of an FYI, however thanks for letting me know - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 01:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just saw the article you are referring to and yes I apologise I did not write advertisement as I normally do - I will be more careful next time. Thanks again - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 01:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that fall under the category as db-bio but for a company? Jesus I hope so as I've probably had 3 or 4 dozen articles deleted under that criteria! - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 01:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion as non-notable

Thanks for the advice. I shall attempt to be more judicious in the future. --cholmes75 18:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Your recent comments on my RfA

Thanks for taking the time to actually research my nom, instead of just "going with the crowd". I have responded there, and would welcome some feedback on it! Thanks, dewet|✉ 17:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Blackbyte

I do not know how I could prove that blackbyte really does exist other than giving you a link to their website. Of course, there are no certified documents or anything in the kind that could be cited to prove that I am not writing "bull****" (sorry for the word).

Wikipedia could create another website, an encyclopedia but where people could write ANYTHING. By anything, I mean articles like mine. I think that would be appreciated (IMHO).

Boredely yours,

Marc.

Re:speedy deleting

I try to tag the articles with a specific tag if I can, but some articles are so random that they don't really fit into any one category. --MZMcBride 02:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Radio Humsafar

Sorry, but I disagree. Radio Humsafar may indeed be notable; the article as written did not convince me thereof ("world's largest" anything by itself says nothing without citation, among other problems). I do hope the article will be recreated with such an assertion, if that is the writer's intent; if it's recreated as it was, it will be deleted again, if not by me then by someone else. Thanks for the note. :) RadioKirk talk to me 02:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I do understand A7; it is my belief that the deletion was not controversial, or I would not have made it. If you recreate the page and take it to WP:PROD, however, I will not delete it again. :) RadioKirk talk to me 02:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither is there a singular purpose to speedies, nor do I take them lightly—one need only read my user page for evidence of that. I accept your assertion that I was wrong, but I do not agree with it (that notability was "vague", as you put it, is telling). Admins are no more perfect than any other human; however, I stand behind my decision as something I believe was correct. I will have no argument if you wish to have the article PRODded, or my decision reviewed. :) RadioKirk talk to me 02:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I do appreciate the concern and thank you for voicing it. In return, may I ask that you assume good faith and not presume you understand my motives? With the (I believe sole) exception of blocking vandalism in progress, nothing I do here intentionally "makes [my] life easier." Thanks. :) RadioKirk talk to me 03:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That is my intention, though mistakes are inevitable. Thanks again. :) RadioKirk talk to me 03:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Notability of Bill Ham

Does Bill Ham meet Wikipedia standards for notability? His notability is at the level of a former brand manager for a national brand, like an former executive VP at Proctor and Gamble. That's not usually considered enough for Wikipedia. The WP:BIO standard is "Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers (ie - Hollywood Walk of Fame)" Bill Ham is not on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. --John Nagle 04:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Bot-maru

Just wanted to let you know that your block of User:Bot-maru will expire with an already present block in a few minutes unless you unblock and reblock since the previous block will cancel out the longer block. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 17:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Smile Lee

Thanks for removing the hangon thing from the Under the Shadow article. I must have forgotten, so thanks. And God Bless.

The Sub Wars

Sorry 'bout superseding your prod there, but the person had posted the thing twice after being explicitly told not to. Pat Payne 20:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, SCZenz! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 02:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

AFD

If you're interesed theres a similar AFD called Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom Hearts Inverted Hearts that I have started. We might have to keep an eye out for a fan-based onslaught of Keep votes. Cheers! DGX 20:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Black hole electron

If you should find time to do additional black hole electron evaluation, would you please review the math to confirm that there is no dimensional error in the "electron mass to Compton wavelength" equation I have used. The steps to derive this are clear and simply stated on my "User" page. The math can be readily checked. Interpretation of its meaning deserves discussion and debate. DonJStevens DonJStevens 19:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

PS The equation to be reviewed is:

electron Compton wavelength = 2(3Gm)exponent 1/3,times (2 pi)exponent 5/3

The value m is the electron mass. Wish you the best. DonJStevens 14:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian related articles

Hi, I just wanted to say my intentions are entirely good here. I just thought it needed to be pointed that Palestinian related articles do tend to get particular attention from Jewish users (and not many other members of the community), and I personally feel this is leading to a lack of neutrality in these articles, Regards Arniep 00:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I know many jewish people are not pro zionist, it is just my experience on Wikipedia that many Jewish users or people who have a strong interest in Jewish articles get involved in Palestinian related articles and in my experience tend to try and ensure a pro Israel outlook on those articles. Arniep 00:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, to be honest that seems to be a bit of strange argument. If there were a lot of Turkish users and they continually tried to force a certain wording or inclusion of links on Kurdish articles, or Serbs on Albanian articles, to say no one should mention that they are Turkish or Serbian would seem a bit silly. Arniep 00:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure what I was careless about really. Many people pointed out previously that a large number of the votes to delete Category:Kurdistan were from Turkish users and that a large number of delete votes on an article about Gay rights (can't remember which exactly) were from Catholic users, and in both cases noone was criticised (except by maybe the Turkish or Catholic users) so I'm not sure what is really the difference. Arniep 09:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the point is noone made generalizations about Catholics or Turks. It was just a obvious to many users fact that various users were asking their friends to come to a debate and vote delete. An exact same problem is happening on Palestinian related articles with various Jewish users. If this cannot be discussed on the Village Pump can it be discussed at all? Arniep 19:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, all I was doing was pointing out something that I have observed over a very long time that many users who identify as Jewish or who have a strong interest in Jewish matters seemed to be biased in relation to Palestinian articles. That is how I worded it. I never said all Jewish editors are biased which would indeed be offensive and is something that is obviously not true. Perhaps you could ask Jayjg to apologize for claiming that I have a strong anti Israeli bias, which is just a plain lie. Arniep 21:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I never said they were biased because they were Jews, I said that many users who identify as Jewish or who have a strong interest in Jewish matters seemed to be biased in relation to Palestinian articles. If I pointed out that many people who seem to be making non NPOV edits to Kurdish articles were Turks would I have received the same criticism? I don't think so. Arniep 21:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, it isn't Jayjg's preogative to make false claims in order to discredit other users, it is a personal attack. If Jayjg can provide no evidence of that claim, unless he apologizes I consider it your duty as an admin to warn or block him. Arniep 21:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi let's be clear again I never made generalizations about people by ethnicity or religion, I just said that many Jewish users were making edits to Palestinian articles which were biased towards Israel which suggests that they are not neutral (to state the obvious). SlimVirgin posted the statement I made that "much of the Israeli and pro-Israeli media "deliberated distorted" the truth about Rachel Corrie.". This is not evidence I am strongly anti Israel. It is just a observation of the fact that media reporting during times of conflict often does not tell the whole truth or is somewhat "spun" to favour the home side. I repeat the statement that the statement that I hold a strong anti Israeli POV is a lie and I consider it a deliberate personal attack. Arniep 21:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, I posted my message too soon by accident. It cannot be unacceptable to point out that certain users may have certain biases on checking their previous edits otherwise Jayjg wouldn't have been able to claim I was biased by checking an article I had edited. If I had skirted around the fact that the people that seemed bias were Jewish or had Jewish interests, someone would have claimed that I was just picking on them because they had Jewish interests or identified as Jewish so whether I pointed out that they were Jewish or not I would still have been criticised unfairly in an attempt to close down the issue. Arniep 22:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Village pump discussion

I find everything he has said to be extremely inappropriate at best. He's still insisting that the issue is "Jewish editors" (see above), even though the only thing that defines them as Jewish is his own accusation that they are. I guess the only amusing thing is the irony of a highly POV editor accusing others of POV, along with his making outrageously offensive statements while complaining of being offended by other statements. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The whole thing is outrageous and distrubing. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Village pump discussion

Thank you for attempting to end that discussion—The entire thing was spiraling out of control and needed to stop. I would have done it myself had I been a tad more bold. Anyway, thanks.--Sean Black 19:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it.--Sean Black 19:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)