User talk:Polyamorph/Archive 4

Happy New Year!
Hi, I saw your message at Logger9's talk page, and I must agree. Along with noticing the tell-tale signs of plagiarism from the start, there also seems to be some signs of synthesis. Of course, I don't have the expertise to be able to tell if my suspicions have any merit, (my field of study is more in the realm of metallurgy), I'm just guessing from the nature of the writing.

Anyway, I just wanted to thank you for your help in improving my understanding of glass, and to wish you a very happy New Year. In this coming year, may all of your wishes come true, and if they don't, may it at least be an improvement over the last. Zaereth (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy new year from me too. Having seen the latest escalation on User talk:Logger9, I now think we have a clear case not only for a block, but for a ban. I left a note at User_talk:Moonriddengirl to ask how to proceed. Maybe in the meantime it's best to stop any discussion at User talk:Logger9: don't feed the troll. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

To be used later (Logger9's investigation)
I exactly agree with that. I actually meant to say that someone should ask him but since the time I commented was already 01:30 AM PST, I was completely blanked. Thanks for helping other ways to investigate! I can't comment on the investigation itself since it gets blanked without pressing anything. I'm using a computer on an internet cafe, contrary to my PC back at the comment time.

Sir Jazer 13 (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've marked some of the images as possible copyright infringement, it's up to the admins on commons to decide though. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Natural dye
Thanks for assessing Natural dye. - PKM (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Aberystwyth
I saw you removed the external link to www.aberystwythguide.org.uk on the Aberystwyth page citing 'WP:NOT'. Could you clarify the specific unacceptability of this link on this page? --Vas62.49.7.249 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * per WP:NOTTRAVEL among other points in WP:NOT. Why are you are trying to promote this sites, are you affiliated with them in any way? Polyamorph (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, since you have signed your post above Vas, and one of the websites that you are so keen to include was created by "Vas" I assume that you do actually have a conflict of interest (WP:COI) and your inclusion of this link constitutes WP:LINKSPAM. Polyamorph (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Is not the criterion for WP:CONFLICT that 'a neutral editor would agree that your edits are in the best interest of Wikipedia' ie the content at the site rather than the existence of a link pre se? The site is not selling anything and extends the information in Wikipedia.

Is not this what the the 'external links' section is for - as differentiated from the main body of the text and the references section.

Anyway, given that the BBC contains comparable, but not identical, information could not all of your objections be contrived to fit the BBC link left behind? --Vas62.49.7.249 (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not really interested in arguing this with you, you are spamming the article with your link. Wikipedia is not a link farm and the policies WP:External links and WP:NOT clearly explain which external links are suitable. Moreover, if you maintain a website you should not add links to it in wikipedia, as detailed here: WP:ADV . In my opinion the BBC website is sufficient for this article and it is a reliable source, hence why I left it in. Polyamorph (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you think that Wikipedia would be harmed or enhanced without the 5th of its Five Pillars? "Despite its name, "Ignore all rules" does not sabotage the other rules. Its purpose is to keep them from sabotaging what we're doing here: building a free encyclopedia. Rules have zero importance compared with that goal. If they aid that goal, good. If they interfere with it, they are instantly negated."

- What "Ignore all rules" means

--Vas62.49.7.249 (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No it's an important policy, but WP:IAR is not relevant here.Polyamorph (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If improving wikipedia is important to you then you should edit the Aberystwyth article itself. This will benefit the project far far more than promoting your personal website in the external links section. Polyamorph (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Self harm
Thanks Guerillero. It would be nice to put some effort to take this to WP:FAC but the article would need a lot of work, I'm not sure I have the time right now. Polyamorph (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would love to see that happen. The fall may be a better and less stressful time to try that. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk   21:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I listed self harm for a peer review to start to get an idea of how much work may be needed to get this up to FA status. Feel free to refactor my reason for submitting the PR if you think I would attract more people. cheers --Guerillero &#124; My Talk   03:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I modified your text. The article has never had a proper peer review and although it's obvious the article needs a lot of work before it can reach FA status it is definitely worth seeking other editors opinion on the article. Polyamorph (talk) 09:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Your AIV report on 59.163.216.16
Thank you for your report on. I have however declined to block for the following reason:

This is a shared IP, we won't block for 3 months for a single test edit :)

If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask me on my [ talk page]. Cheers! -- Luk  talk 09:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you check their contributions there is clear evidence of systematic long term abuse, several users have warned the IP, with the last giving a final warning. They've had enough warnings, no one asked for a 3 month block. Polyamorph (talk) 10:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The editing is erratic, if you block for 24 hours, you're almost sure no one will see the block (there's 2-3 edits a month?). Looking at the contribs, it looks like it's multiple people, either behind a proxy or a shared computer. if you want to stop the abuse, you therefore need an anon block that will last at least a month, and we *might* lose the next guy on that computer who notices a spelling error. I'm not sure going further than "Please cleanup your mess" will accomplish anything. :) -- Luk  talk 10:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In which case I will just give them another warning. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 10:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Question
Hi Polyamorph,

I have a question that I've been trying to answer, but, so far, I haven't been able to locate any information about it. I've always been interested in understanding why and how things freeze or melt, or change into a glassy state. One phenomenon I noticed several years ago is exhibited by honey. I've had the opportunity to test honey at some very low temperatures, (~ -60 F at Prudhoe Bay), but have never been able to freeze it. It becomes thicker, the colder it gets. It seems to take on a glassy appearance, but still retains the properties of a liquid. It becomes hard to the touch, but if the jar is tipped over it will soon flow into a new position. If the lid is left loose, some will leak out. It appears to behave the way glass would if it was actually "a very slow moving liquid." The trouble is, I haven't been able to locate any type of research or reliable sources on this, except a few puzzled discussions over the phenomenon like this one: Google Books - Annual report / Illinois State Bee-Keepers' Association, Volume 8. Since you seem to know know a lot about this type of stuff, I was wondering if you have heard of this, or are able to point me in new direction. Zaereth (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Zareth, honey does indeed exhibit a glass transition. The opening sentence in this nature paper describes refrigerated honey has having a "sluggish response" due to the fact that it is a supercooled liquid close to its glass transition temperature. The glass transition temperature of honey is between -42 and -51 °C (see here) so you will need to get below this temperature before it would appear to behave as a solid. Many food products are amorphous when solid and so experience the same viscous slow down as any other supercooled liquid as it forms a glass, many sugars for example also exhibit this behaviour (see here). So the analogy between honey and say a high temperature oxide glass former, for example, seems quite accurate. Polyamorph (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, I was never expecting you to have the exact answer I was looking for. Thanks! A few degrees colder and I would've had it. I had long suspected that honey, corn syrup and other sugary mixtures were actually supercooled liquids, since they will often crystalize at the slightest seeding, but wasn't sure if my hunch had any merit. It has an uncanny similarity in consistancy to that of lead or quartz glass in the formable state. Most sources I've read agree that refrigerating honey will speed up crystalization, but "freezing" it (ie: putting it in the freezer), will preserve the texture almost indefinitely, although it won't solidify. I'll have to read that PDF file later. I doubt this is worth mentioning on the glass article, but I think it may be worth some mention on the honey article. Thanks again for your assistance, and have a great weekend! Zaereth (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. The sources I found are only the result of a few minutes searching so if you need any help finding some better sources let me know. Or else searching for the term "supercooled sugar" or something similar should return some good results. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, the help you gave me already proved to be exactly what I needed. Its amazing what you can find if you can just think of the right keywords. That little bit of information semed to tie the entire explanation of honey's behavior together. I notice now that many of the sources I already had use the term "viscous liquid" or "viscous fluid." I just finished adding a "properties" section to the honey article. It seems to look OK. (But, then again, I'm still a little too close to the creative process to make that determination. After a few weeks I can come back with some fresh eyes.) I'm always open to suggestions or changes if you notice anything. Again, thanks for your help, it was very appreciated. Zaereth (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 04:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 14:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

WP Somerset in the Signpost
Copied from my talk page & the project talk page to ensure wide coverage.

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Somerset for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day.&mdash; Rod talk 07:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Use of your silica.svg file
Hi Polyamorph - I'm an undergraduate working on a thesis. I'm studying the glass transition, and I like your image of SiO2 glass (it's very nice). I'm not sure how to cite it properly, though... so I thought I'd ask you what you'd prefer. Jasper Cook (talk) 04:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Jaspercook, thanks for your interest in the image. When I uploaded the image I released it into the public domain, so there is no obligation for you to attribute it at all. However, we all like to cite sources on wikipedia so you can just use something along the lines of [1] Public domain image, en:User:Jdrewitt at Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Silica.svg . Alternatively, for any file on wikimedia commons you can go to commons Page URL ( e.g. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Silica.svg ) and click on the icon of the world that says "Use this file" and it will suggest ways to cite the image. Hope that helps and good luck with your undergraduate studies. If you need any clarification with regards to the structure of silica or glasses in general feel free to ask me. Polyamorph (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Polyamorph, Thank you! I figured it was alright to just snag the image, but I figured I'd give credit where credit was due. Also: thank you for the further information regarding citing Wikimedia commons images. I looked around a bit on this, but didn't find a clear answer. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it to me. This has been a fascinating research project (we're studying the glass transition in polymer melts with a type of fluorescence-detected correlation spectroscopy), and I've garnered a ton of information about polymer physics, spectroscopy, and research in general. Also, I've loved getting exposed to the scientific community. It's (usually) a great example of how collaborative communication should work. Next up: grad school! I just hope I can stay this naïve long enough :). -Jasper Cook (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Glass
Hallo, I read your editing and I agree with you, but the problem with the word "solid" is, that some editors think that glass is "not that solid" since they think that can flow. I changed the wording. Tell me what you think.--Dia^ (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Dia^, yes the new wording is fine. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI
Im not an admin so there is nothing i can do re Topic ban. It was decided and there is nothing i can do however we effectively have appealed the length that is all that is in my power to do. Only adam can try and get it lifted which i was hoping he would try and do at the ani but he appears not to be online for now. If you feel that strongly then you will need to take it up with the blocking administrators. I understand their is precedence for this type of topic ban. Also the amount of admins who were involved in the last ani means i dont really see how it can be described as a kangaroo court. Warburton1368 (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Admins are just normal editors with some additional tools. There are many users who have more experience on wikipedia than some admins do. So I don't agree that just because admins were involved in a discussion means it was anymore valid than the opinions of "ordinary" editors. There may well be precedence for this type of ban but my point is that due process has not been followed. i.e. proper dispute resolution should have first been followed. I don't see that this was done, instead this user has essentially been bullied. At least that's how I see it. As far as I can see there has been disruption on both sides and some important points that the user has made have been completely ignored. Polyamorph (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Polyamorph, I agree with you and appreciate what you said but the admins have decided and there is nothing anyone can do about that, some of them seem to be more interested in handing out bans rather than actually resolving disputes. Thank you as well for the barnstar although I don't really feel like I deserve it. You are a very wise wikipedian and I hope you as well will not become disheartened with the process, you're attempted intervention here really made be feel good as I now know that there are some people who actually know the point of Wikipedia. Adam4267 (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

'Explosion'
Hey there mate, I see you reverted my edit on the grounds of it being 'unconstructive', without elaboration. Not too fussed, though I disagree with this, as I was trying to address an issue raised on the talk page - title as it stands is both confusing and factually incorrect, as there was no explosion. As such, it is inappropriate to title a section 'explosion', when this in fact did not occur. Moreover, the replacement I added has been previously agreed upon when the article was first promoted to featured status; this replacement is clearer and has a more suitable opening sentence. I have restored the opening sentence, as I don't see any factual basis for it to be removed - though I've left the title unchanged in an act of good faith for the time being, until this can be resolved - 121.223.194.4 (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It was an automatic edit summary, but I do disagree with the edit that you made. Of course it was an explosion, although perhaps your definition of explosion is different to the everyday use.Polyamorph (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but disintegration is not an explosion, they are two different things. Whether the average layperson thinks otherwise is irrelevant - scientifically, classifying them as one in the same is incorrect. - 121.223.194.4 (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not even about how the average layperson thinks, it's how reliable sources report the incident. Besides there is nothing wrong with have the title "explosion" and then go into detail about how it technically "disintegrated". Polyamorph (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

What's your reason for deleting the references to glossy screens causing eyestrain? Also, it's a bit rough to label the edits as vandalism. Why are my edits regarded as vandalism, whereas yours are not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerz123 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The link is not a reliable source (see WP:RS) and your persistent insertion of the link appears to fail our WP:SPAM policy.Polyamorph (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Rogerz123-the source is not an academic source, but it is an anecdotal source. It is one thing for academics to assert that there is such a syndrome, but actual anecdotal evidence from users is just as relevant, in my view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.64.35.189 (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Except it also violates wikipedia's policy on original research (WP:OR) and so will be reverted.Polyamorph (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Roentgenium
Ok, this is getting neither of us anywhere.

Please explain to me why MIT Technology Review is not a reliable source?

Barwick (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have on Talk:Roentgenium. It's a blog, it's only source is the dubious arxiv article. It is not a reliable source per WP:BLOGS and what you are doing is promoting a dubious theory with absolutely no credible evidence. Polyamorph (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, if you can find a credible reference, preferable a peer reviewed journal article which confirms the discovery, or a reliable third party source (that isn't a blog) that discusses the controversial "discovery" in the context of all available evidence, then I would consider a compromise. But until then this is just reporting the existence of an arxiv preprint, which is not notable, unless you can show evidence of significant coverage. Polyamorph (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

regarding edit on e=mc2
Isn't it relevant information right now, as in this moment in time, to know about the potential discovery at CERN. Anyone who is willing to engage in the topic of Einsteins relativity theory, needs to know it is potentially scrutinized. It may be that it won't get confirmed, but then the mention will disappear or will be rewritten. What happened is part of the discourse on the theory, it may not attribute to the description of the theory itself, but it certainly can't be denied in terms of relevant information on this particular subject in this moment in time. Eelkeher (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes it's very relevant and I don't dispute the notability of the information you added. However, since this is very recent news, a lot of users have been adding the same information to a large number of physics articles. There is a discussion on the WikiProject Physics page here about it and it was decided that for now it is best to keep the information on one page. At the moment that is the Neutrino page. Feel free to join the discussion on the WikiProject Physics. Thanks for you contributions and interest in wikipedia! Polyamorph (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

DTTR
WP:DTTR - goes for ES as well, I  suppose ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sinebot does it all the time :) Feel free to remove the template I added with your own sig. In the future I shall try and make sure my edit summaries don't try to teach an admin how to suck eggs, although that wasn't my intention! Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Special thanks to you for your support at the MfD of my user page. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, the idea that criticism of a religion can be censored on the grounds of it being offensive to believers is completely wrong, and exactly what religious leaders want to achieve in order to keep their sheep from believing their fantasy. Science and education for the win! Polyamorph (talk) 09:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of a page from article:Scientific plagiarism in India
Hello,

The page "Gopal Kundu Controvesy" of article "Scientific plagiarism in India" contains invalid information about him and the controversy, He is a former scientist who has registered patents and works at National Centre for Cell Science (NCCS), Pune, India. The page also refers to unofficial invalid sources. I request you to check official website of NCCS,Pune,India which is a Indian government body. the URL is www.nccs.res.in/gck.html. Please consider this request because it affects his reputation.

Thanks. Shrikantbhalerao101 (talk) 12:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Shrikantbhalerao101] has posted this to 13 different users' talk pages. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, before considering replying, you may like to see my responses here and here. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks JBW, think you've said all there is to say here. I strongly suggest you block the user if they persist with this disruption. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Hey Polyamorph,

I just wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas! It was your helpfulness and advice that first got me to join Wikipedia, so thanks for that. I hope the coming year will be a good one for you, and may it bring all of your wishes true. Zaereth (talk) 08:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)