User talk:Records

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

 bibliomaniac 1  5  06:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Folding@Home
Sorry, I'm not too knowledgeable on this subject. Plus, reviewers aren't obligated to fix their objections. -- Selmo  (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * On Science Collaboration of the Month, we vote about the articles not the subjects. I mean we work on an article just because of its bad state not the real value of the subject. That's why I feel that your comment was unnecessary. Thank you for you appreciation. NCurs e work 21:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Robot
Lol I wish I had a robot to automatically write FAs - life would be so easy, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, this isn't the case, though if there's anything specifically that you would like help on, I would be glad to help out on.

It seems like you have already run the script on Rosetta@home; in fact, that's all I do while logged into User:AZPR. Cheers, AZ t 23:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

distributed computing projects
I replied to your question on my talk page, but I wanted to ask a more specific question. You've shown a lot of enthusiasm for distributed computing projects, including a peer review request and MCB collaboration nomination for Rosetta@Home, a FAC and a science collaboration on Folding@Home, etc. But you replied to all of the objections on the FAC page with the same rather insubstantial request that we fix the systemic flaws in the article ourselves, which is not really how FAC works, and isn't a very reasonable request given that you've made only four edits that I can find to that article. You've also pasted the same text into the FAC nomination and the science collaboration nomination for F@H and pasted the peer review script output on the MCB collaboration nomination for R@H. I'm wondering what your motivations or goals are for these articles, since you've made a multitude of requests for Wikipedians to expand or improve them, but don't seem to have made many substantive changes to them yourself.

As a suggestion for both articles (this is duplicated on my talk page), it would be a great first step for you to read the relevant literature on the methodology involved (especially F@H) and the theoretical justifications for the use of a distributed computing model in solving the problems they intend to solve. Again, this is especially important for F@H as the associated theory is critical to their technique for decomposing the problem into work units. Opabinia regalis 01:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please Stop
Please stop spamming people's talk pages with bold, word for word copies of the FAC. A link or note that you have worked and it would be much less annoying. pschemp | talk 02:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Explanation - It must get FA status. So it can be published on Main Page = More Tera Flops for Research! --Records 02:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And how is that a valid reason? I thought we'd made it clear to you that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for your research project. Apparently, the message did not get through to you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Talk_page_guidelines --Records 03:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Promotion of a project you like - but appear to have very little understanding of from a technical standpoint - is absolutely not an appropriate use of Wikipedia. I initially tried to assume good faith that you were a well-meaning but misguided enthusiast, but you've now made it absolutely clear that you tried to scam work out of Wikipedia editors for the purposes of advertising. That is completely unacceptable and in fact, you've just provided an argument against putting this article on the main page if it should ever become a FAC. Which, by the way, you manifestly do not have the technical background to achieve, so announcing minor changes on everyone's talk pages is totally unnecessary. Really, just drop everything to do with this nomination and this article. Opabinia regalis 03:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

F@H part2
Records, kindly contact me on my user page or via PM at the folding-community.org forum. I agree with you that it would be great for the F@H article to be either a featured article or the selected scientific collaboration. However, F@H should not try to jam our enthusiasm for the project down the wikipedians' throats - which is their impression of what we are trying to do. The article effort can be a win win situation for both online communities. Let's talk about how best make that happen. I salute your energy and boldness and want to help you direct them in a way that will benefit both F@H and the wikipedia. Thanks. susato 21:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Records, what is the point of this? Surely you aren't trying to make it seem like you have more support than you do. pschemp | talk 03:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)