User talk:SCZenz/Archive8

Completing Version 0.5 reviews

Hi, and thanks for your help at Version 0.5. We've made it over 1000 articles! Now we only have about four weeks left to review articles for Wikipedia:Version 0.5. I was wondering if you could take a look at Wikipedia:Version_0.5/To_do and sign up for something? I'd like us to make sure we don't miss anything important. And once the end of the month rolls around we can take a well-deserved break...! Any help you can give would be most welcome. Thanks, Walkerma 20:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin

If you would like to pay tribute to Steve Irwin, who tragically died on September 4th 2006, just feel free to sign your name on Mil Falcon's userpage under tributes. 49Untouchable 18:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

RyanGerbil

The reason I did not discuss it with him first is that, as I noted on the [[WP:ANI], my previous attempts to discuss his behaviour with him were met with defiance, and only a report brought the desired results. I also note that his current behaviour continues to be defiant, despite your charactarization of the WP:ANI discussion as reasonable. RyanGerbil admits to having done what he did on purpose, and finds justifcations for taking liberty with WP policy (as he puts it "I simply took it a little bit further"). Furthermore, amd more worrying, is his statement that "I don't see the page being unprotected anytime soon. ...it appears admins will be solely responsible for its content for the foreseeable future" - this from an admin who was engaged in an edit war on that page, and who has not made a single attempt to resolve the dispute on the Talk page since the page was locked. Isarig 14:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

String Theory

I wrote a paragraph on string theory regarding its disastrous economic consequences. You have deleted it for failing certain criteria.

I am a new comer to Wikipedia, so I understand that my attempt at contribution may not be in the format considered appropriate for the site. I am perfectly willing to learn and accommodate the requirement from the Wikipedia community. But I am equally confident of the accuracy of my criticism, which happens to fall into a pre-existing section titled "Problems & Controversy", so I would expect a little leeway if my comment seems harsh. By the way, I am an executive at an investment bank and have a PhD degree in particle physics, so I think I am reasonably and objectively qualified to make comments on the subject.

The $1bn number comes from this basic back-of-the-envelope analysis: the grants for fundamental theoretical physics in the US come from two major sources, the DOE and the NSF, with the former contributing $20mn/year and the latter $10mn/year. These funding levels have not risen meaningfully over the recent years, so they are close to the 22-year average. By most estimate, string theory accounts for more than 90% of this money. For example, 20 out of 22 new tenured professors at the top universities in fundamental theoretical physics during recent years have been string theorists. String theorists also produce more than 90% of the papers in the field.

Note that I have been talking about grants, which usually covers travel, conference and postdocs. The universities or research institutes themselves still have to pay for the salaries, office, secretaries, utilities, etc., which cost at least as much as the grants and possibly much higher. I took the low-end estimate.

So, the simple math is: $30mn * 2 * 22 * 0.9 = $1.18bn for the US alone! The rest of the world probably paid a similar amount, but $1bn suffice to make the point, so I ignored it.

I would appreciate your suggestion on how this very valid criticism of string theory can be included into Wikipedia.

Hi there. Thanks for your question, and I apologize for not explaining this better immediately. First, the tone of what you wrote was as a persuasive essay, whereas that section should have a neutral description of criticisms from other sources; see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, one of our core policies. Second, it's important to remember that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is a secondary source. That means we describe the analyses of others, we don't do our own; see Wikipedia:No original research. I think that should give you a stard on understanding the issues. Now if someone has published a criticism like the one you make above, it would certainly be ok to describe that criticism, citing a reliable source. -- SCZenz 16:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Your EmDrive AfD comment

Do I take it that you may believe also that NS is now of a lower quality than it once was? LinaMishima 23:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Quarks

Oh, come on. Leave this curd. (http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&lang=de&searchLoc=0&cmpType=relaxed&sectHdr=on&spellToler=on&search=quark&relink=on)

Gell-Mann's original paper] states very clearly that he got the term from Finnegans Wake. See also this page. It may be that German has the same word, I don't know, but it is verifiably not the source of the word. -- SCZenz 19:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

KraMuc sock list

Hi SCZenz, recently this permabanned user appears to be experimenting again with edits to MGR etc. User Hillman (talk · contribs) has been maintaining a fairly complete list of socks here, but it is unclear to us what the optimal (and WP correct) long term mechanism should be for it, see this thread, for instance. An interesting aspect is that any solution should possibly apply also to the German WP. Any help or thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Crum375 20:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

We can't do much about the socks, except to permaban the accounts (but probably not the IP's). However, I think Modern Galilean Relativity should be deleted; as it stands, it is useless, POV, and a magnet for bad edits—and nobody seems to have time to do the planned rewrite. If someone wants to write a new article on Opposition to the theory of relativity, it can be done from scratch and any needed material can be resurrected. -- SCZenz 20:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I seem to have unintentionally fragmented this discussion, but I have some questions for SCZenz:

Was the case I opened, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/KraMuc (2nd), improperly closed without debate? Or are the instructions/page merely misleading about what the current purpose/procedure there is? If you know anyone who administers that page, can you help urge them to revise the instructions (which are very misleading/confusing in the case of 2nd cases) and purpose/procedures? I.e. it is unclear if there is debate, or whether a single admin (or even a nonadmin user) can make disposition of a case without debate. Where is the proper place to report permabanned users editing under a new account? Isn't that a blockable violation of policy? The garbled comment in the cited Sockpuppet Case seems to suggest that this user thinks it is not.

I'd like encourage cruft patrollers, particularly in the German Wikipedia, which seems to be leading the way in testing procedures for controlling cruft, as per "The Year of Quality" announced by Jimbo, to use my user subpages at User:Hillman/Dig to further the goal of building a reliable encyclopedia, but I need to be able to prevent angry crackpots from vandalizing these pages, and my experience is that the more users who are allowed to edit, the greater the likelihood that a mistake will be made.

I'd like to eventually see pages like these accepted as standard practice, but they should be in some Wikipedia namespace location, they should only be editable by users with "Cruft Patrol Clerk" and admin privileges (or something like that), or even only editable page by page by a short list of "Cruft Patrol Clerks" who are "expert" in a given case, since it is terribly important to avoid "false positives", and this stuff should be regulated by clear policies (currently there is almost none). So I'd like to see experimental German language versions of some of these pages, esp. KraMuc, used to further the experiment in cruft control there.

But right now there is no provision for me to make a list of allowed editors of my user subpages, and there are almost no policies relevant to "digging" at all, and this is very controversial, so I think I must be the only user allowed to edit these pages, since they are intended as notes for signed essays and it is clear from current procedures against me that I am being held accountable for what is said in these pages. The last alone is sufficient reason why I should be the only one allowed to edit them. Do you know of any relevant policies I can quote to support that? ---CH 20:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Review of Photon for FA?

Hi SCZenz,

You had some excellent insights when the Photon article was in peer review, and you encouraged us to submit it for its Featured Article candidacy. Would you please re-review it now and, if you like it, give us some Support? Thanks much! Willow 06:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Meson

Can you check out my proposed intro on Talk:Meson? Thank you! -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 17:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

straw poll at WP:CITE

I have started another poll at the WP:CITE talk page. You have been active there recently, so I encourage you to vote. CMummert 23:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Smoot picture

Cheater!  ;-) Dragons flight 20:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Particles

Thanks for catching that on Meson. Can you take a look at the infobox on J/Psi? The family/group section may not work out well for composite particles and I am not sure how to rectify it. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 01:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What could those groupings be called though? Fermion = family, Hadron = group, Baryon = ?, Nucleon = ? -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 01:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup on Automatically_Tuned_Linear_Algebra_Software

I have been working to cleanup Automatically_Tuned_Linear_Algebra_Software. I see that you have edited that page in the past. If you would be so good as to check out the latest version and contribute to or comment on the article, it would be most appreciated. Cheers, -- Jake 19:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 66/11/5. I learned quite a bit during the process, and I expect to be learning a lot more in the days ahead. I will be taking things slowly (and doing a lot of re-reading), but I hope you will let me know if there is anything I can do to improve in my new capacity. -- Merope Talk 13:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Uncertainty principle

That article is a mess. I mostly gave up on editing it at the end of last year. Maybe it should be brought up in Project Physics.--CSTAR 16:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sixth Party System

Sixth Party System

Sixth Party System was an article regarding the U.S. Party Systems, from the nations founding until today. It was deleted, leaving it the only missing piece from the 1st thru the 7th Party Systems.

The Seventh Party System recently survived an AfD. It is illogical to delete a previous party system, leaving an inconsistancy between the [[First Party System and the Seventh Party System.

Please excuse me if my formatting of this request is somewhat inconsistant. I'm not a habitual undelete requester (in fact this is my first :-) Thank You Joseph 19:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TawkerbotTorA

"Does something useful, will be run by a trusted user who will watch it carefully, supported by Jimbo."

Hi. I'll be brief: We really don't know what Jimbo said. There me be a misunderstanging somewhere. Plus I'm willing to click "block" 250 times a month. - brenneman ^{L} 23:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

KraMuc

Hi, SCZenz,

Could you look at recent edits by KraMuc anons at Talk:Louis Essen and in User_talk:Hillman/Archive17 (just archived since expect flood of new correspondence re this Asmodeus RfC, arghghgh) and at history of User:Hillman/Dig/KraMuc, notes which KraMuc anonsocks have repeatedly vandalized in violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Iloveminun#Keeping_notes? I am concerned that there appears to be little interest by admins in even trying to enforce the permaban against KraMuc or his anon sock vios of numerous other policies. He is leaving personal attacks on me (misrepresenting what I said and so on) at various places, calling for my blocking, vandalizing my user pages, vaguely hinting at legal action, etc. I think you guys need to consider a bogdablock type template and get serious about blocking his latest IP addy on sight for a day, to curb this kind of thing. Also, should admins be removing personal attacks left by permabanned users?

I also left a message at User talk:Pjacobi. My posts to WP:AN/I have mostly been unanswered. I'd sure appreciate some help here. TIA---CH 21:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Mail call!

I seem to have your email now. -- SCZenz 17:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, good, I think our respective systems are functioning again then. ---CH 19:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

q-deformed operators

I'm wondering...in your studies, have you encountered q-deformed operators? --HappyCamper 05:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess

You might like to join us at Physics/wip where a total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess. At present we're discussing the lead paragraphs for the new version, and how Physics should be defined. I've posted here because you are on the Physics Project participant list. --MichaelMaggs 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hillman talk deletion

Apparently you deleted User talk:Hillman, giving the reason as {{Db-userreq}}. This is abrupt and unsettling. Chris was in the middle of a number of ongoing discussions with frequent interactions. Can we verify that Chris asked to instantly and permanently disappear from Wikipedia? I saw no evidence of that as recently as yesterday. --KSmrq^T 06:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Werdnabot

Do you think we should mass rollback its last batch of edits? (I'm assuming a significant number of them will be wrong) – Gurch 15:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I considered it, but I don't think so. One problem is that pages that were edited correctly by Werdnabot, recently, may have those changes rolled back too. I think it's better just to let people handle fixing their own talk pages as they see fit. -- SCZenz 15:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was worried about. Particularly the archive pages themselves, often Werdnabot will be the only contributor. I'll leave it – Gurch 15:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Werdnabot

Do you think we should mass rollback its last batch of edits? (I'm assuming a significant number of them will be wrong) – Gurch 15:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I considered it, but I don't think so. One problem is that pages that were edited correctly by Werdnabot, recently, may have those changes rolled back too. I think it's better just to let people handle fixing their own talk pages as they see fit. -- SCZenz 15:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was worried about. Particularly the archive pages themselves, often Werdnabot will be the only contributor. I'll leave it – Gurch 15:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marudubshinki

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Marudubshinki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is desysopped. Marudubshinki may not use a bot. Should Marudubshinki use a bot he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Marudubshinki#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 23:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A humble request for your opinion

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. Recently, you expressed an oppose opinion with regards to my RfA. I would like to thank your feedback on this but I need another critical feedback from you. If you could spare a few minutes to voice any concerns you may be having with regards to my contributions to this project since my last RfA on this page, I would be most grateful. Once again, thank you for your time! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:EcMan

Thank you for your quick action. -- Ec5618 07:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Heim theory

I've rewritten it, it can probably be improved. If you have time you should watch out for reverions to the old POV version.

I deleted some irrelevant content about the very technical details. I.m.o., it was only there to impres laypeople. The claim that one can derive anything useful from the formalism has never been shown. We don't usually incude that level of detail in proven theories... Count Iblis 20:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Werdnabot

Hi, I;ve noticed that you've been having problems with Werndabot too. Have they been fixed? I'm looking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Highways/Archive 2 wondering what happened. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It's the whole page, I haven't fixed it yet. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

physics

Hi, I'm Suleyman. I saw that you said you were a physics student on a talk page so I thought I'd drop you a question. I want to start studying physics, particle physics to be particular. I'm not interested in researching or anything (I'm a 3rd year med student) it's just the talk about particles and forces and dimensions. It kind of fascinates me. So here's my question: Where should I start from, which articles are elementary and must be read? What are the books on this subjects written for the layman like me? Thanks in advance for your answers, hope hearing from you soon. *addition* I'm sorry for how lame these question may have sounded.*

No, it's a good question. Let me think a bit and ask around and get back to you. I read such books many years ago now, so I'll have to track them down again. -- SCZenz 04:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks for such a quick answer. I'm looking forward to hear from you again. oops, I didn't sign the last message. --Suleyman Habeeb 08:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

tracking (particle physiscs)

hi SCZenz, I saw you planned to begin writing an article about tracking systems in particle physics, I would be glad to help you.. I think we can start when you have time.. I'm not a great writer, but I can help a bit. I've some direct experience in tracking systems, bye Tatonzolo 00:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I started with an introductory paragraph (I think it sould be rewritten after the article will come to be something more than a stub however).. and please check the [particle identification] discussion :-) Tatonzolo 12:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Varying gravity by element

Hello!

I try to modify the Gravity page's "Equations for a falling body" section. Now, i've just registered. There is an argument on an hungarian forum about a man, who talk very intresting things. http://forum.index.hu/Article/showArticle?t=9134219 nickname: iszugyi (it is a hungarian link) and some days ago a newspaper wrote an artcle about it (http://www.nol.hu/cikk/421628/). Can it be believable? I can't find any link. I wrote the author.ű

Peter

Hi Peter. To report a discovery on gravity, particularly one of this magnitude (it overturns General Relativity), we would need a paper published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. -- SCZenz 23:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer.

I wrote to the author. I'm waiting for the response. If he unable write a short summary about his measurement i will try it. But i have not much time. Maybe he discovered something, or misunderstood something.

Peter

Hi!

The author send me a reply and attach a pdf. It is a brief of his theory. Can I send it to you?

Peter

Hi!

Did you get it? What is your opinion?

Peter

Non-postulated relativity by Lev Lomize

Dear SCZenz,

Thank you very much for explanation! As I said, this is not an entirely new approach in physics. This work does not disprove anything in SR. The original book (in Russian) has been extensively peer reviewed by highly qualified physicists in Moscow. Moreover, 60,000 copies were sold.

I understand your point: you do not want any articles in Wikipedia that would be considered by many people in the field as "controversial" or wrong. You think that Wikipedia is not the place to promote new ideas or interpretations. Could you recommend me any other place that would be more appropriate for this purpose?

Next question. Let's assume that someone (probably not me) will create a Wikipedia article with a biography of Lev Lomize, where his contributions, ideas and views in physics will be described. Would that be O'K? Or even such article will be deleted if someone does not like it?

Thanks again.

Sincerely,

Biophys

The book has been peer-reviwed by physicists? Really? This surprises me, because usually only journal articles undergo scientific peer review—it would be helpful to have some kind of verification of this fact.

I don't know much about places to promote new ideas. You can always set up your own webpage. But if the author really has a useful new scientific idea, he should publish some journal papers. Once there are journal papers, then they can be cited and included on Wikipedia.

As for writing a separate article on the author and his book... There's no reason that there can't be an article on any book, but books with very small print runs are generally regarded as insufficiently notable to include. There are no hard-and-fast rules on this, and I don't honestly know what would happen with this particular book.

Hope that helps! -- SCZenz 20:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My Editor Review

Hi, I'm looking for feedback on my edits. If you have the time could you possibly leave a review or comment on Wikipedia:Editor review/Jersey Devil. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 05:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Entropia Universe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropia_universe

I propose we remove the entire player resource section. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and it's clearly being used to advertize individual stores and forums and so on. -- SCZenz 23:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I check this page on occasion because I've been playing this game for 4 years. You guys removed community linked web sites for obvious reasons. Now I'm seeing users adding and removing other related community sites. If all are not allow, then none should be allowed. I use wikipedia for many things and I do not like seeing it abused.

Thank You for your time.

Offensive posts

Can you please sort some obvious stuff before we get down to discussing the shades of grey? [1] Thanks! 8-)--Light current 00:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between remarks on the reference desk, which is frequented by new users who you don't know, and comments on the talk pages of users you know. In the latter case, you can make some judgement about what they'll find offensive; furthermore, a talk page is a more appropriate place for a bit of socializing than the reference desk, don't you think? Or am I missing your point? -- SCZenz 01:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly the opposite stance to that which you took about my private joke comments on StuRats talk! I think this person is disrupting and trying to confuse issues. Look at his contribs 8-(--Light current 01:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not the opposite stance, if you're referring to my objection to your "shitty assholes" comment. Insulting other Wikipedia editors is bad. It looked to me like the remark you linked in this section was not intended to be offensive, and that the editor had reason to believe you wouldn't find it so.

However, I didn't realize you thought the user was trolling. If you believe he's trolling, feel free not to respond to his comments. You could even remove his remarks from your talk page, and StuRat could do the same with his own talk page if he agrees with you. I'll look at contribs now and see what I think. -- SCZenz 01:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The post is on the internet, and therefore public, and more to the point it's hosted by Wikipedia. The general consensus, from what I've seen here in general, is that anything posted anywhere Wikipedia is "fair game" for people to express concern about. Ring bells?--Light current 01:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, so you can express concern about what he said, but I don't think he meant to be rude. You meant to insult the unnamed admins in the remark I objected to. -- SCZenz 01:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I didnt mention admins at all in my post. How do you know I meant to insult admins. That is your reading of the post! In fact I was not particularly thinking of anyone specific at the time. And the post was a joke! How do you know likewise that Cbrown is NOT intending to offend me?--Light current 01:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know any of these things with 100% certainty. But I am making educated guesses based on what I know of the people and situations. At some point common sense has to be used. Your remark looked like it was insulting admins, and you had reason to be aware of that when you wrote it; Cbrown's comment looked like something that wouldn't offend you, and he had reason to believe that as well. That's my reading of the remarks; I could be wrong, this time, and if so you should accept my apologies but also accept the general point I'm trying to illustrate for the future. -- SCZenz 01:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What??? Saying I should look at my butt! and suggesting I have apersonal hygen problem. Is that nice language? I think its offensive! I never have used that sort of lang anywher and yet Im being chastised whilst this user gets away with it! Can you start to see the reason Im feeling angry?--Light current 01:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are trying to make a point by claiming you're offended and seeing how I react. I understand that you're trying to find consistent rules for what I think is appropriate behavior and what isn't, but you need to understand that human behavior is very complicated. I will, as soon as I can, leave you a long message about how I think about what's appropriate to say/write and what isn't. -- SCZenz 03:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No dont leave a long message: it will only lead to interminable discussions and arguments on the finer points. Lets KISS!--Light current 14:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, feel free to ask me for it later if you want to understand better how I make judgements. -- SCZenz 19:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

After looking, it looks to me like he's giving his opinions. I don't see anything that looks like trolling. -- SCZenz 01:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hence we come to your opinion against mine!--Light current 01:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you point to specific comments that you believe were an effort to "confuse the issues" or were not the genuine opinions of the user? -- SCZenz 01:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hes a new user (3.5m) edits mostly talk pages. He is a disruptor! 9k edits in 1 month? Give me a break?--Light current 01:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

He talks a lot, but I see several productive edits even in his recent 50. -- SCZenz 03:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Also look at this edit summary! [2] THis is a juvenile now acting in a juvenile manner!--Light current 02:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he dropped the discussion with you because he decided it wasn't productive; he seems to have been under the impression (as I am) that you were taking offense to make a point. I don't understand all of his summary, I must admit. If you really think he's a kid, you might consider making allowances or being helpful, rather than being confrontational. -- SCZenz 03:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you know what causes me offence? It does happen to illustrate a point, but the events were not cauased by me. Also my other purpose in bringing this to your attention is so that this little thorn might be removed to allow proper discussion of these important issues. It does ssemas if he has now ceased his forays so I am prepared to drop it as long as you remember what has been discussed here and that everyones opinion may be different --Light current 14:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, dropping it is fine. I will remember that opinions may be different, believe me, but I hope you will take away that sometimes informed judgements must be made. Judging motivation should be avoided when possible, but judging what someone had reason to know about how others' would react to their comments is sometimes necessary. -- SCZenz 19:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

OK then as long as you remember that when trying to judge my and others' motivation in the future. BTW sorry for rearranging you page. I thought it was mine 8-( --Light current 19:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hehe it's ok, don't worry about it. -- SCZenz 19:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi SCZenz, and thanks very much for your support during my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 64/0/0. I am grateful for the overwhelming support I received from the community, and hope I will continue to earn your trust as I expand my participation on Wikipedia. It goes without saying that if you ever need anything and I can help, please let me know. Wait, I guess it does go with saying. ; ) --cholmes75 (chit chat) 22:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ref Desk

I will assist you in removing cruft from the RD. JBKramer 17:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Only one problem I saw - you're not going to use your admin powers, so pointing people at WP:ANI to get you to stop is treating ANI like the complaints department - I think the right place to gather "stop it, SCZenz&co" consensus is either RFC or VP. JBKramer 18:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If you intend to wield adminstrative power to stop comment returns, you'll want that to be more clear - yes. Something along the lines of "and treat subsequent re-additions as disruption, which I may block you for." JBKramer 18:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It certainly justifies going to WP:ANI now. JBKramer 19:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Colin James (journalist)

Ah, copyvio. I'm glad you caught that. I don't worry so much about spambots; I've got gmail -- great filters. I've helped in a couple of similar biography situations before, by doing exactly what I offered here. Interestingly enough, I never got an e-mail from that person. And yes, I always try to give the benefit of the doubt, especially in the often-touchy area of biographies of living persons. Thank you for following up on that. SWAdair 09:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

0.999...

Please read the article on the limit of a sequence if you want details; that's why I'm linking it. Have you ever known JL to actually thoroughly pay attention to any source, be it article, webpage, book, post or person? He doesn't have the attention span to comprehend the article — again, I'm not sure if he's stubborn or "intellectually challenged" — and he's attacked both of us, accusing us of doing things we didn't do. Why keep responding if it's only going in circles? After untold words in the past few weeks, what is there left to say? Calbaer 02:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to respond when JL has made an obvious error and I think he might actually understand it. There's no real purpose to it, I suppose, except that other people who are curious about the arguments will see that we actually do know how to answer his objections. His ranting about how I'm evil bothers me very little; my wiki-fu is strong, and I know exactly how far his accusations will get him. I guess in the end I'm just amusing myself, and not accomplishing much else. You may have a point that we should all, collectively, stop answering him... I'm not sure. -- SCZenz 02:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should. He drives down the signal-to-noise ratio. I mean, he didn't even bother to look up the meaning of the word "bound"! He ignores the more mathematically interesting/involved posts. And his name-calling, while silly, allows us to suspend our assumption of good faith. Hanlon's razor prohibits me from judging him a troll. But, as is said on Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith, "Remember that at least trolls know they're trolls; the dedicated crank doesn't understand they're a crank." Calbaer 02:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

His recent responses to you indicate that he is still not, in fact, reading sources pointed out to him. Next time you're tempted to respond to him, you might want to read Crank (person) and see how startlingly familiar it seems, from the very definition, to details like the facts that cranks "tend to be very, very bad listeners" and "ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understanding mainstream belief." The essential defining characteristic of a crank is, "No argument or evidence can ever be sufficient to make a crank abandon his belief." This is exemplified by JL's declaration that he never said 0.999...=1 in the reals, in spite of indications to the contrary that seemingly functioned just to keep us paying attention. And his false information ("made up ideas") is stated with such confidence that it might confuse those coming to the arguments page for help on understanding mathematics. Just my two cents.... Calbaer 19:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedian Questionanwserers

Just to cheer you up a little. I agree with your deletion of this thread! At least our senses are common on that one. 8-)--Light current 06:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha, wow. I didn't even notice that was the same guy whose thread I removed until much later. -- SCZenz 16:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Norris

The Chuck Norris reference wasn't me, it was a seperate person that occasionally uses my ip but now has his own account, just letting you know. :) Temp 00:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, glad to hear it. -- SCZenz 00:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed!

Yeah, I agree. I'll bring this up. Thanks! DoomsDay349 03:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I apologize for editting the closed discussion. When I began editting, it was still open, and I spent some time choosing my words. --BostonMA ^talk 21:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Closing of Esperanza MfD

Thanks for the explanation on my talk page. I replied there, but in case you weren't watching, I did have a comment I'd like you to see:

Well, maybe I missed it, but why couldn't what you just told me here have been included in the closing comments? Especially the part about (and identificaion of) the three admins, since that had been discussed on the talk page already. It certainly would have been appropriate.

Anyway, this isn't meant as a complaint, but as a suggestion for next time. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 01:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks!
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation.
Georgewilliamherbert 04:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Already have

I already had before you messaged me. Isn't it pretty. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

scarlet.

I would argue that Scarlet is not a stub. It contains all known information on the magazine and is long enbough to stand as an article itself. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, right. What I've done is put a categories needed tag on it and a message not to tag it as a stub. I'm sure that will deal with it. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Entropia Universe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropia_universe

I propose we remove the entire player resource section. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and it's clearly being used to advertize individual stores and forums and so on. -- SCZenz 23:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I check this page on occasion because I've been playing this game for 4 years. You guys removed community linked web sites for obvious reasons. Now I'm seeing users adding and removing other related community sites. If all are not allow, then none should be allowed. I use wikipedia for many things and I do not like seeing it abused.

Thank You for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.28.56 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 20 November 2006

You did say to ask if I had a question... ;)

Hi there, thanks again for clearing things up for me in the 0.999... = 1 argument page, so following on from that I have a quick question which I'd love to know if you can clear up. Although it's related to the 0.999 discussion, it's not directly about it. so figured your discussion page was probably a more appropriate place for it...

Ok so I accept now that $0.{\overline {9}}=1$

What I'm interested in knowing is that if the above is true, would it also be true that ${\overline {9}}$ is not infinite but may as well be considered infinite? (It diverges to infinity?)

I have another question, but it kind of relies upon the answer to that one, so I'll wait to see if you have the time to answer first, I'll check back on my discussion page regularly :)

Many thanks again Archgimp 11:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, so what I'm understanding by your answer to that question is that integers are divergant. The more you add to them the closer they get to infinity. So - using the formula $f(n)={\frac {n}{{10}^{\left\lfloor \log _{10}n\right\rfloor }}}$ I can take ANY integer you throw at me and map it to a rational between 1 and 10. Doesn't matter what the integer is. That's a 1 to 1 bijection from integers to rationals right? All I've done is shown that theres an equivalency between divergence and convergance I think. Now, that being the case, if I were to invert that formula, am I not right in thinking i would run out of integers before I ran out of rationals? After all, rational 10 would map to infinity, and rational 10.1 would be a number greater than infinity, which would be a contradiction. So if that's the case, how can rationals and integers have the same carinality? Sorry if it's a stupid question, it's just that the relevant wiki pages tell me (and in a most convincing way) that they are of the same cardinality... I'm clearly missing something, I just wonder if you could tell me what it is? Archgimp 10:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Good spot there, and stupid of me not to see that before =( however, I can finx that I think. All I have to do is completely invert my numbers first, so 98765 becomes 5.6789 and 10 becomes 0.1 100 becomes 0.01. Not sure how I'd do that mathematically, but it must be possible. In that instance, we take all integers, and put them between 0 and 10 (which may well be an onto). That being the case, we will have a unique rational for every unique integer and *still* have an infinite number of rationals remaining. Surely this would prove that contrary to the diagonal method, you *cant* count all the rationals using integers, ergo their cardinality if different... I've a feeling this is where my understanding of infinities will become my hamstring, but let's see where it takes me first... Anyway - thank you for the pointers so far, as you can tell, I'm starting out on this from the basics. Just for reference, I didn't spot that flaw in the function before because I was using it to look at the distribution of primes whilst 'removing' them rom a picture based upon the base of numbers which obviously don't include any composites like 10 etc.

I just noticed that *all* bases are base 10, no matter *what* number base we use incedentally: 'Base 10' = 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 - 'Base 3' = 0,1,2,10 - 'Base 15' = 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E,10, but I digress).

I shall show you the new function when I've done it - thanks again for the tips so far. Archgimp 09:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

1) Sorry, I didn't mean to imply there was anything incredible about the base always being 10 idea. It's just something I'd not noticed before. Remember, I'm coming at this from an angle of almost complete ignorance, so I'm 'rediscovering' for myself what you might learn as part of any good further math course. Very much like Godel, who went back to the very roots of numbers themselves to re-evaluate what is actually proven and what has been taken as self-evident. I figure if I'm to stand any hope of learning anything new about numbers, I'm going to have to start with no preconceptions and re-prove everything without shortcuts. Perhaps a mammoth task, but still, for me, an exciting and rewarding one.

2) Your function does create a subset, not a bijection, as it can't deal with the infinately repeating number 9. Therefore there will be at leat 1 integer which can not be represented in your subset. The whole point of the excercise I'm understaking is to prove to myself that, like cantor told us, the rationals are countable. With cantor's proof as described on his wiki page, we get a set of pairs: (1,1/1) (2, 1/2) (3, 2/2) etc etc. Now a fundamental part of having 2 pairs is that the proposed list means if you have any natural n you can say 'the nth rational on my list is r by finding the set with the natural part n. Furthermore, you could also say for any r I know that r is the nth rational by finding the set with the rational part r and reading the coresponding n. So a bijection is, AFAIK, a way of proving that 2 sets have equal cardinality by the fact there is no n and no r that does not exist somewhere in one of the infinite number of pairs. Ok, so far this all makes sense. So for me to disprove this I have to show a way of taking all unique ns and pairing them up with corresponding unique rs so that there does not exist an n without an r, and finally showing that there does exist an r without an n. The function I am working on is just another way of ordering the rs. After all, it shouldn't matter what the order of the set is, only that there is a unique pair for every unique n - right? Archgimp 08:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so here's a question regarding infinite sets. Let's say I want to make hypothetical sets of all the multiples of the primes. would I be right in thinking that ${\big \{}a:\mathbb {P} _{x}*1,\mathbb {P} _{x}*2\;\ldots \;\mathbb {P} _{x}*n{\big \}}>{\big \{}b:\mathbb {P} _{x+1}*1,\mathbb {P} _{x+1}*2\;\ldots \;\mathbb {P} _{x+1}*n{\big \}}$ In english (because I'm learning theory faster than notation), the set containg all the multiples of any given prime will always contain fewer elements that the set created the same way from the next prime. This being because prime 2 represents 1/2 of all possible following numbers, 3 represents 1/3 of all following numbers etc... Probably wrong, but I can't find a wiki page that explicitly tells me so... Thanks for the time my friend. Archgimp 08:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

About your comment

Alright. I just believe that speeding things up will get us closer than endless debates. WikieZach| talk 22:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok I understand. WikieZach| talk 13:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy tags

speedy deletion is not a tool for borderline cases

Of course -- except that these aren't borderline, unless there's some strange new meanings of "empty" or "borderline "I was previously unaware of. Perhaps you should bring up your new definitions with the admin who had already deleted the so-called articles before they were recreated. --Calton | Talk 04:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi SCZenz, thanks for dealing with this. I've listed it at DRV ([3]) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Free speech

The policy you cited is against anarchy, which goes far beyond free speech. A countervailing pronciple is that Wikipedia is not censored. I believe there is a happy middle ground for NPOV views which differ. Regards! Edison 17:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make is that editors and admins should assume good faith when someone posts and not be quick to delete good-faith posts on a talk page. I agree that some posts should be removed, such as a diatribe about the subject of the article on a talk page where the discussion should be about how to improve the article, or comments which are completely off topic. I have had problems with seeing such diatribes and feeling limited in the wisdom of removing them myself because it has the effect of being a self-serving edit, which removes comments I disagree with. Are you willing to serve as an impartial judge when I find such instances in the future in articles I may be editing? Thanks. Edison 18:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion from Miscellaneous RD

Can you explain why you deleted the following response from the "Stephen Hawking's Religion" thread on the Miscellaneous RD ?

The above comment is absolutely illogical. No human being is above god. Nor can a human take the place of god. One can only be a spiritual adviser at the most or a messenger of god.

- The existence of faith cant be outrightly rejected. Science and education only rationalises an individual and avoids excessive dependence on religion. Science is the path to progress and when one loses out to competition one needs faith. Hawkings filed a suit for divorce on grounds of being abused by his wife. That abuse cant be covered under irreconciliable differences.

- Faith is essential 18:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)~~

It is a rather dogmatic response, but I don't see why it needed to be deleted. Gandalf61 11:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You say you deleted the response because it was opinion/argument. But there are whole threads in the RDs that contain little else but opinion/argument. See "Evolutionary reasons for plant-based medicines?" on the Science RD for an example - hardly a single link or reference in the entire thread. How do you decide which "opinion" responses you will delete and which ones you will leave alone ? Gandalf61 17:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that don't have time to systematically patrol the RDs, so you use your judgement to delete things in an ad-hoc fashion, as and when you feel like it. By doing this, you are not treating RD contributors fairly - you delete some contributions that break your rules, but you leave others alone. The danger is that other people will follow your example and start deleting RD contributions that don't happen to meet their own set of standards. I don't agree with what you are doing, but I understand you believe you are doing the right thing. If you really feel so strongly that the RDs need to be cleaned up, then please make the effort to do it properly. Put a process in place so that agreed rules are applied consistently, fairly and across the board. Gandalf61 20:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR

RD Misc. Its not vandalism so you are breaking 3RR 8-(--Light current 16:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

(See replied on LC's talk page. -- SCZenz 16:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC))

RD

I just feel that some people are taking too stern a view of the RD. It is a fun place, and there's a lot of kidding around, but there are very few inappropriate posts there. If you want to start removing things, you might start with the questions about killing people and having sex. I'm not trying to come down on you, I don't want to get into any kind of war over this, but I do think your actions were too heavy-handed. I'm sorry. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How about if we open a discussion on the RD Talk page and try to gauge consensus there? We can advertise it on the Village Pump, too, to get more eyes. And add it to the WP:ANI discussion? If you don't mind, I'll start that. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#The tone of the Reference Desk. I tried to make my comments neutral in tone, let me know if you think it should be reworded. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I fixed your user name. Sorry about that.  :) I'll try to be neutral. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well, see, that's where you and I disagree. Although I am strongly pro-stay-on-topic elsewhere, I am less adamant on the RD. I don't know why, call me inconsistant (among other things people call me around here). User:Zoe|(talk) 18:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the Reference Desk? A place where people, newbies or not, can go to get questions answered that they can't find in normal searches or not covered by the articles they've looked at. I find the place fascinating, which is why I read it every day. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:IMG 1510.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:IMG 1510.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 its not being deleted. Thank you.

Complaint

My article was deleted! Please put the Wicky Woo article back up! It is provable information, just go to www.freearcade.com. I am boycotting this service unless you put the article back up immediately.

Non-postulated relativity

Dear SCZenz,

Thank you for advice. I am not going to start a new article about Lev Lomize, because this is about a scientific issue, not about a person. But making an alternative paper about SR would probably lead to a dispute (would it?), which I also do not want, especially since I work in a different scientific field. Still, this does not feel right. Just to summarize. A book was published in Russia and sold in 70,000 copies. But the editors are saying that this is not a reliable source, because its English translation has not been peer reviewed. Do you think this is right? Why they simply did not say that this book is not good enough to be included in their SR article? I would understand that. I am asking you simply because I am a new user here and want to understand better Wikipedia policies.

Thank you.

Biophys

Non-postulated relativity

Dear SCZenz,

Thank you. So, if I understood you correctly, any article on a subject like "Theory of relativity based on physical reality" (title of Janossy book) must be based on verifiable sources. Right now, I have ~30 references, more than a half of them are journal publications. But I also would like to make a reference on this book by Lev Lomize. It is written in Wikipedia instructions that a published book is an acceptable source, except self-publishing. An internet reference to the russian version of this book can be found here [4].

Now, there is a question. I was told that Dr. Ginzburg will probably do whatever is neccessary and reasonable to help me out. So, what do you think should be done to improve the verifiability of the source and the article in general? Should Dr. Ginzburg explain in a letter that this book has indeed been peer reviewed, indicate the names of reviewers (if he knows them) and tell what he thinks about the book and its content? Should this letter be placed by him on the Internet, and where? What else should or can be done?

Thank you very much for help!

Biophys

Non-postulated relativity

I just would like to make a comment about reliable sources. Yes, one must make references to original papers in journals if he is talking about new experimental results or new theories described in such papers. Most books however do not introduce new data or theories. They often provide only new explanations or interpretations of the previously published experiments and theories, for example to make some complicated subjects more understandable for students. Most scientific journals would not accept a paper that only describes new explanations with regard to alredy published theories and data, expecially if such explanations are written at the level understandable by undegraduate students. This is the case of the book "Non-postulated relativity". It does not introduce any new theories or data. It only explains the already existing and widely accepted theories (such as SR) in a novel way. This is a textbook for students, not a new original research. I am sure that Russian version satisfy completely Wikipedia requirements, and the English translation satisfies the requirements of Wikipedia for translation, because it was done by a professional interpreter.

Sincerely,

Biophys

From SCZenz: If it's simply a new way of teaching SR, then there are two ways it could be included in Wikipedia: 1. It was a notable minority viewpoint among teachers of SR. 2. Our editors thought the pedagogical approach would be useful for our readers, and found it not to have any major philisophical differences from ordinary SR teaching. Is either of these things true?

I agree, this is simply a new way of teaching SR.

I think 1. is true.

As about 2., this approach is certainly pedagogically useful. But most people would probably think (and I think) that there are signicant philisophical differences from ordinary SR teaching, although this is something that could be discussed. So, I am not sure about incorporating this approach into the existing SR article, although it could be briefly mentioned there. Probably, it would be better to make a separate article on this subject and follow NPOV.

Biophys