User talk:SCZenz/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Chris Frangou page

hi. just wondering why i am unable to create a Chris Frangou article? its says he isnt notable but he meets wikipedia's criteria. thanks!--Chrisjazzbass (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Admin Coaching Re-confirmation

Hello, previously you expressed interest in participating in the Wikipedia:Admin coaching project. We are currently conducting a reconfirmation drive to give coaches the opportunity to update their information and capacity to participate in the project. Please visit Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status to update your status. Also, please remember to update your capacity (5th table variable) in the form of a fraction (eg. 2/3 means you are currently coaching 2 students, and could accept 1 more student). Thank you. MBisanz talk 09:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Very Large Hadron Collider

I have nominated Very Large Hadron Collider, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Very Large Hadron Collider. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? RogueNinjatalk 02:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for the list of baryons

Hi,

I noticed that you had an interest in particle physics, so I wondered you could head over the List of baryons and Talk:List of baryons pages a give some feedback. I'm currently trying to bring that article to Featured List status, but I'm not a particle physicist so I probably made half a dozen mistakes. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Headbomb (talk · contribs) 21:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Reply to Question about deleted article

HI, I wrote an artilce, "Aston Number" that you deleted. I want you to know that the aston number is used at two universities for the purposes stated. If it must remain deleted as is, please send me the article and allow me to succeed or fail at revising it up to wikipedia standards. I'll send it to you before it gets reposted. I would really appreciate that. may 2, 2008



"I will gladly grant your request if you can provide any sources which would call into question my initial judgment that the article was a collection of obfuscatory jargon designed to cover the introduction of an obscenity into Wikipedia under the guise of mathematical notation."

Of course the idea that my purpose was the "introduction of an obscenity into Wikipedia under the guise of mathematical notation" is complete nonsense. The use of As is already taken in chemical separations. I should think that someone with your experience would not look into non existent hidden meanings in mathematical notation. At any rate, your judgment of obfuscation is unequivocally correct... Please, again I cordially request that you return to me the original article text. This will allow me to more easily make it serious and informative. Also, I will be able to describe in detail how it is truly used. I will leave it up to you to decide if it is worthy or not, previous to its posting.


Thanks so much for your help.

Luke Lukeprizer (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


no prob. give me the article. Lukeprizer (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a copy of the original text and it would make it much easier if I could use that text. Thanks for your help.Lukeprizer (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Centrifugal force

Per your note on WP:FTN: HELP! See talk:Centrifugal force. I don't want to get into an edit war, but this editor refuses to see logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plvekamp (talk • contribs) 16:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid he's at it again: see this diff, where the whole package of ideas is shoved back in again after having been removed for lack of references, complete with an edit comment that says "this has got nothing to do with references." Please also see my most recent comment on his talk page. (I've also cc'd this to the noticeboard.) -- The Anome (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes by Maxwell and Bernoulli, fully verified but deleted.

SCZenz, you saw what user Plvekamp did to my verified quotes by Maxwell and Bernoulli. What did you do about it?David Tombe (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is the centrifugal force real or Fictitious?

SCZenz, if Anome opens up a section entitled 'Is the centrifugal force real or Fictitious?' then don't be surprised if somebody attempts to clarify the matter.

I wasn't the one who first mentioned the real effects. It was Anome. Anome was the one who re-worded the introduction and talked about real effects.

All I was doing was segregating the real effects from the fictitious effects in terms of co-rotation and the Bucket argument.

The article is in too much of a mess for you to be removing simple clarification comments on the specious grounds that they constitute original research.

You have been far too hasty to take on board false allegations from certain persons who have been alleging that I have been trying to push an unorthodox view. You didn't fully check out your facts before you decided to take sides.

Your reversion was just mindless spitefullness. David Tombe (talk) 09:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Edit War

SCZenz, you have already proved that you are not on the side of wikipedia policy. You dismissed perfectly legitimate citations by Bernoulli and Maxwell on totally specious grounds.

And don't tell me not to remove sourced material. Just because material is sourced doesn't mean it has to be there. There are other issues to consider such as relevance and coherence. People are removing sourced material all the time and it doesn't cause a problem.

At the moment you are engaged in wikistalking. Anome went to you to complain because he didn't understand the issue. Anome didn't understand that the real effects only occur BECAUSE they are in a state of rotation.

But rather than investigate the matter properly, you simply decided that you would enter the field and delete evrything that I write. You believed his claim that I was trying to insert unorthodox material into the argument, and you told Anome that you would sort the matter out.

Your argument about Maxwell's and Bernoulli's statements not indicating that they believed that centrifugal force is real, was total rubbish. It was sheer deceitful rubbish and it would be laughed out of any fair hearing on the matter. David Tombe (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

SCZenz, regarding the edits by the IP server beginning 72, I have got absolutely nothing to do with them. David Tombe (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence

Please update the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.102.27 (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ST47 and STBotI

SCZenz, I'm still trying to avoid this issue as agreed, at least on ANI. However, I'm upset that many people won't acknowledge the problems with this bot and its owner. I would like some problems acknowledged and seriously addressed, and you offered...

Bot and operator failures The bot failed on four of seventeen contiguous edits I sampled. See [1] and [2] for examples. On the first one, the bot failed to recognize a fair use rationale and left inaccurate edit summaries and templates; on the second one, the bot left misleading and inaccurate edit summaries and templates (note that the bot left different templates for these two examples).

Besides failing to recognise a fair use rationale, the bot and bot owner failed miserably to satisfy the Wikipedia:Bot Policy, which places a high emphasis on communication and accuracy of edit summaries and templates. (quoting)

"In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: ... uses informative messages, appropriately worded, in any edit summaries or messages left for users."

and

"Good communication: Users who read messages or edit summaries from bots, will generally expect a high standard of cordiality and information, backed up by prompt and civil help from the bot's operator if queries arise. Bot operators should take care in the design of communications, and ensure that they will be able to meet any inquiries resulting from the bot's operation cordially, promptly, and appropriately. This is a condition of operation of bots in general."

In both cases, the bot said there was no valid rationale in its edit summary, this is misleading or erroneous. In the second case, the uploader, a new editor has to read through misleading edit summaries and over 3,000 characters - 500 words - to uncover the WP:NFCC#10c link. That's more that twice the size allowed for Wikimedia board candidate statements ! [3] The link should be right in the edit summary in a friendly and clear way. Even experienced users will have trouble deciphering that they merely need to add an article link to the rationale. This is unacceptable and does not come close to satisfying Wikipedia:Bot Policy.

These are minor failures, easy to fix. I'm really not to worried about them.

The major failure, however, is the bot owner who failed to live up to the Wikipedia:Bot Policy in terms of; "communication", "a high standard of cordiality and information", "prompt and civil help", and the "ability to meet any inquiries resulting from the bot's operation cordially, promptly, and appropriately". He should have is bot flag removed.

Bot blocking Several people are still accusing me of improperly blocking the Bot, and yet right on the bot's user page is a note and link;

Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it

Of course I tried to talk to the bot's owner, but the first sentence out of his mouth called me stupid (in violation of Wikipedia:Bot Policy). Nevertheless, I continued to attempt dialog, giving productive suggestions, and didn't block until I saw new examples of the bot's poor performance, but still continued to give suggestions. [4] [5] [6]. Neither the bot nor the bot owner came close to satisfying Wikipedia:Bot Policy. Blocking was the right thing to do here.

Betacommandesqe drama, part deux: Is this the type of person we want running a project-wide bot operating on the contentious subject of fair use images? Does the community really want to put up with Betacommandbot, or perhaps a more virulent strain, all over again?

I see this as an opportunity for the community to enforce the standards of performance and behavior outlined at Wikipedia:Bot Policy. ST47 has failed miserably so far. He should be told in no uncertain terms that this won't be tolerated.

--Duk 06:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: STBotI

Well, I certainly won't wheel war. Though, I also refuse to post to AN/I. So... bleh. Could the edit summaries use improvement? Probably. Is that a sufficient reason to block the bot? No, I don't think so. Plenty of software has bugs and quirks that are undesirable. But throwing out the baby with the bathwater just seems draconian and unproductive. Though, ST47 is now on break, so I suppose the block isn't something to be too concerned with. Let me know if you want to discuss this further. My talk page is always open. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Misleading or erroneous edit summaries are sufficient reason to block a bot. Normally this is a trivial problem and the bot is up and running in no time, but in this case the owner is uncooperative. The edit summary problem is insignificant compared to that. Neither the bot nor its owner live up to the requirements of WP:Bot Policy, which places special emphasis not only on the accuracy of edit summaries and notes, but the cordial and helpful nature of the bot owner and their ability to communicate. Running a bot is not a 'right'; if the bot and owner don't live up to their responsibilities, they bot has no 'right' to run and should be blocked on sight. --Duk 17:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of science section in centrifugal force

I've now started a section on the historical development of the modern conception of centrifugal force in that article. I am by no means an expert in the history of science, and I'm unsure about how the references I've cited hold together: I'd greatly appreciate it if you could please review the material I have added so far? There appears to be significant work on this topic by Domenico Bertoloni Meli (for example, [7], [8]), however, most of the interesting papers on this subject are behind a paywall and inaccessible to me. -- The Anome (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Baryons

I'm currently in the process of getting the list of baryons to be a featured list. I see you have an interest in particle physics, so I thought you might want to help.

So far I've detailed all known and predicted JP =1⁄2+ and 1⁄2+, as well as all reported pentaquarks, fully referenced through the PDG Review of Particle Physics 2006 and some other articles (more recent = better, new data).

I've also given an explanation of concepts such as isospin, spin, flavour quantum numbers, and the rules of particle classification, and I believe I've covered these topic accurately. However, I am not a particle physicist, and considering the list of baryons sums what I've self-taught myself in a month and a half using pretty much only the PDG Review and a cryptic handout (I couldn't find a single book that could explain isospin or lie algebra starting from a fundamental reality or a fundamental concept, so I threw them all out and did it myself), it could use some fact checking and a few references (if you have some).

Comments and feedback are appreciated. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 06:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)