User talk:SCZenz/Archive 1

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)

Admin Coaching Re-confirmation
Hello, previously you expressed interest in participating in the 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 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)

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 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? RogueNinja talk  02:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 and  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 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 ! 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 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. . 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 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)

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)

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,, ), 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)

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)

IP edit to Talk:Centrifugal force
Please look at this diff. edited David Tombe's comment in order to expand it. A reasonable assumption is that it was himself, because he got logged out accidentally. Now look at Special:Contributions/222.126.43.98. This IP address was also involved in a long "Tombean style" debate in Talk:Lorentz_force. After a while, apparently this IP got an account to continue the debate as. Now compare George Smyth's user page with David Tombe's user page. They look very similar. They have the same debating style, and conveniently enough George specializes in Electromagnetism while David specializes in centrifugal force. But of course we know that David is interested in both topics, as we can see from his publications in http://www.wbabin.net. I think this may be against the spirit of WP:SOCK. What do you think? --Itub (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Itub. Your line of evidence is rather compelling. David Tombe was asked about this on April 30, and although he did not respond, there have been no edits as George Smyth since then. I agree that edits by the other account, by that IP range, and any others with Mr. Tombe's style deserve careful scrutiny. -- SCZenz (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

WW2 Casualties
The posting on the Holocaust is not redundant! The entry points out the percentage of Jews killed. Please do not remove this important point again. Thanks--Woogie10w (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Holocaust figures in the table are backed up with a reliable source that is easily verified. Teachers will ask students "where do you get those numbers"? From some unsourced post on Wikipedia? No, Martin Gilbert is the source, I went to the library to verify the Wikipedia data. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable--Woogie10w (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The source of each figure of the Jewish Houlocaaust deaths column is Martin Gilbert's book. That is why the note must remain as is--Woogie10w (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You say I don't pay much attention to your edit. Well I ask you to check the source Martin Gilbert and you will see the rational for the separate line. Gilbert has maps of Europe that display the Holocaust deaths. There can be no doubt for the source for those figures in the separate column Jewish Holocaust deaths.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am off to the office now, the owner will demand sources of all the figures I present--Woogie10w (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

yes
Will considering I identify with the "racist" Jews, I find it extremely offensive. I'm not debating whether he is attacking specific editors or not. I never stated that he was doing that. In fact, he has been very cordial and polite during and after the afd of allegations of israeli apartheid. But, that doesn't necessarily mean he isn't a racist. And I'm not arguing whether it isn't attack on Jewish people as a whole. It is an attack Jewish people, period. Distinguishments are irrelevant. I cannot emphasis this enough. If I were to include a shoddy picture of an angry black person, and under said picture insert a short sentence, like "x group of black people are racist", would that not be considered racist by wikipedia outsiders? I think my observations are legitimate, and I'm sure many others agree. I understand your an administrator and cannot take sides, but to say RolandR userpage lacks racism would be a lie. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion nomination to make a point: Reply
Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, as you did when you nominated Centre national de la recherche scientifique for deletion. -- SCZenz (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You also added a PROD tag to Peter L. Hurd, an article that has been through AfD. This is not acceptable behaviour. Any further disruption will cause you to be blocked. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I just think that this article on Centre National De la Recherche Scientifique lacks references, must be improved or removed. As for the article which had resisted AfD I did not know that it did, and think that the references are spurious because they amalgamate own works and third-parties references. For me it is a vanity article close to self-promotion. I have much respect for Wikipedia's policies. My role as editor is to let them be applied, which includes quality of references. --Jessika Folkerts (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to the accusation of bad faith implied by "vanity article close to self-promotion"? Note: that my one, and only, edit to the page Peter L. Hurd (14 June 2007) was to nominate it for deletion on the grounds that I am not notable). Pete.Hurd (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jessika Folkerts, I frankly think there is a significant weight of evidence that you have targeted articles related to specific users you had issues with. However, if you plan to respect Wikipedia's policies in the future, then I see no need for further action at this time. My one request is that you look at my comments when I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre national de la recherche scientifique. It identifies some problems with the nomination, and gives suggestions on how to deal more positively with articles lacking references. -- SCZenz (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jessika_Folkerts"

Thanks, will do as requested. I will target any user that uses Wikipedia to promote himself. I confirm that in my opinion this article is spurious. I am surprised to see the comments of this user here again. I am not forced to edit an article if I find it too bad for this. He apparently spends his time on Wikipedia looking after his contradictors. Best wishes, --Jessika Folkerts (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not think of yourself as "targeting" anyone. Instead, think of yourself as trying to improve the encyclopedia. Sometimes this does mean deleting articles that are inappropriate (e.g. because of self-promotion), but it never means going after other users. Certainly your comments are misplaced in regard to the Peter L. Hurd article, which you can see from the contribution history has never been edited by User:Pete.Hurd except to nominate it for deletion. Your accusations of self-promotion are spurious, and if you continue to make them despite evidence to the contrary, they will constitute a personal attack. Until you become more familiar with Wikipedia policies, I strongly recommend you stick to adding neutral, verifiable content to articles rather than trying to solve "problems" like this. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir, using the word "targeting" was certainly inappropriate. However, the tone you are yourself using is far from neutral, even threatening, which is inappropriate as well. The use of inverted commas or procedural arguments is more intimidating than convincing. You may not dictate my opinion on this article which is the following. - This article is distressing. The academic interest of this socio-biology of the fingers is anecdoctic. The references are spurious, mixed with an overwhelming number of own works. When you click on some links, nothing clear comes out. Some sources cited are not credible scientifically speaking. And what is the encyclopedic interest of the last paragraph on the joys and the pains of the concerned? The use of a personal photo is contrary to WP policy regarding conflict of interest. For me, it is a vanity article, but it does not need to have been written or edited by the concerned for this.

Sorry but it is my opinion. The interest of Wikipedia is to publish original, non-partisan quality articles on important things or people.I will try to improve quality through positive additions to articles as you suggested and will take a closer look at the Wikipedia policies. Best wishes, --Jessika Folkerts (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
For your e-mail (and for correcting my unbelievable senior moment about the Higgs mass!). It is obvious you know a lot more than I do, and it is reassuring to have someone involved in the LHC debate who has some real claim to current expertise. And now that I see you are personally involved with the LHC, your concerns weigh doubly against my final, "death wish" argument. Is there much concern among your colleagues, do you think? I do worry a bit about the lessons of the Challenger accident.

I was a grad student of Oreste Piccioni for four years, 1965-1969, back when it seemed like we were beating our heads against the wall, just before anyone except Gell-Mann and a few others really believed in quarks. I bailed out into x-ray astronomy, mostly because Oreste & I had — hmmm — "irreconcilable differences" about the optical design of one water Cerenkov counter we built at the Bevatron. Still, he was the most brilliant intuition I have ever personally encountered, and an inspiration. I considered working with Bill Fraser (is he still active at Berkeley?), who was at UCSD before he moved to UCB, but all things considered the "impedance matching" seemed more favorable in x-ray astronomy at the time. But I do still wish I really understood field theory.... Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. I will look at the book you recommend.  I think I understand what phonons are, and their relation to field theory, and also special relativity, but not too far beyond.


 * I agree that the LHC folks need to bend over backwards to be careful, and transparent in their safety analyzes, both because it is good PR sense, and for the more fundamental reason that we really do need to be as careful as we can whenever we are on the fringes of the unknown. The experiences with Challenger & Columbia remind us of the dangers on the socio-technical frontier.  Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of particle physics...
The List of mesons could use some expansions and needs to have Isospin, G parity, C parity, etc... explained in a similar what to what I did to the List of baryons. I wish I could do it myself, but I'm afraid I simply don't "get" mesons as well as I "got" baryons. If you could drop by that would be very helpfull. Thanks. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 09:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick help table
I've added your name on the new WP Phyics Quick help table. I hope this is alright with you. If not, simply remove it. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics Poll
There is currently a poll about WikiProject Physics in general. Please take some time to answer it (or part of it), as it will help coordinate and guide the future efforts of the Project. Thank you. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 18:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well-educated ant
Hi SCZenz, would you mind to join us on User talk:PeR? We are discussing about Rracecarr's ant and its "feelings", and I need your help. Paolo.dL (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:Shiranamikazuya
The Galaxy Angel Eternal Lovers (Shooter Version) is a recreation of the deleted Galaxy Angel Eternal Lovers Shooter Version and Galaxy Angel Final hoax. MythSearchertalk 14:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Page move protection
It's preemptive anti-User:Grawp protection. He likes to move high-visibility pages, often ones with simple names. Most of the ones I have protected are in release version 0.7. If you think any of these pages really are plausible candidates to be moved, let me know which ones and I'll gladly unprotect them. --NawlinWiki (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, there hasn't been a community-wide discussion yet (although that might be a good idea). Given your opposition, I'll stop for now.  But the 100 or so pages that I protected yesterday very clearly fit the pattern of this user's previous move vandalism (it's not random, not at all).  Again, let me know if you think any of those in particular ought to be moved.  NawlinWiki (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to revert the protections, I won't stop you or get into an edit war. I would hope that you would familiarize yourself with this vandal's history and patterns first (try talking to User:Alison).  Please don't unprotect any pages that have a history of move vandalism (and check the deleted edits, too) -- this vandal has a well-established history of hitting the same pages multiple times if they are left unprotected.  Also, I would ask that you *not* unprotect country names; these have been repeated targets of this vandal and he invariably goes back to any country names that are left un-moveprotected.  I hope you'll also be willing to help with the large amount of cleanup that's required every night because of this vandal's pagemoves. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, but as I said, several of the ones that were moved in the last couple of days (Burrito, Albus Dumbledore) were repeat visits -- be aware. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Where..?
Hi there, Are you at CERN at the moment or UCB? cheers Khu  kri  11:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Apology accepted
Re: your message.
 * Yeah, that was one of my blockhead moments. Even if it wasn't a misunderstanding, I was out of line to be so ironically rude. Sorry again about all that. -- Ned Scott 02:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

unusual warning
Hi SCZenz. I can live with your recent modification of Wood, the key point for me being not to soften the zero-tolerance stance on attempts to reimpose a popular culture section. However, I think the focus of discussion should not be my views but the consensus view of the editors of wood. Therefore I suggest the discussion is conducted there and not in our user pages. Plantsurfer (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

SCZenz, I appreciate your concern that our response to this should be consistent with the regulations, and don't want you to think that I am simply arguing the toss with you about it. I wonder how other editors and admins have dealt with similar dilemmas. Surely this can't be the first time a group of editors has felt it necessary to lay down the law? Best wishes, Plantsurfer (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:2008 South Ossetia War
I'm note sure I agree with your last delete on Talk:2008 South Ossetia War. It's probable spam but what User:86.130.139.98 said made a lot of sence! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Please respond
Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents -- John (Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 18:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Wikipedia:COLBERRORISM
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 01:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulatons
Congratulations on your nice article in Symmetry! HEL (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

about Alternative Cosmology Group
I want to thank you for taking an interest in the article on Alternative Cosmology Group, and for working to hold both writers/editors like myself, and the Wiki overall, to the highest possible standards of excellence, accuracy, and reliability. I shall review your comments, and make additional citations where indicated or offer questions and alternatives for your review.

It seems you put in one request for a citation where there is already one clearly given. The reference is after the word theory, where it should be, and not after the word discrepancy.

It also seems from my view that you have missed the point of my stating the generalities in the Rationale.. section. Editors of publications like Scientific American or New Scientist need to cover a broad range of disciplines, and where discrepancies between the predictions of QM and Cosmology differ (for example) they need to cover the work of researchers who attempt to close that gap. Journals that are specific to one discipline or the other can present a self-consistent picture without needing to deal with such issues. Thus, a problem, if one exists, can remain self-concealing.

Do you have a broad knowledge beyond Particle Physics, or have you tried to grapple with such issues yourself? Do you believe there are none? Do you feel there are no open questions, at this point? Does Science already understand all the fundamentals?

If some of the points I'm making aren't obvious to you, without raising POV issues, I haven't done my job well yet. I expect you to hold me to a high standard, and I want to satisfy the need to be impeccable in what's being presented in Wikipedia. But if NPOV is what's in question here, I need to be assured that you have one, as well. If only one side of an issue is being heard, it is obvious that this is not the same as objectivity, and that is what you are calling for from me. This is what the ACG is calling for as well.

Hopefully the fact that issues are being raised and discussed will lead to the advancement of Science.

JonathanD (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Question about neutrality
Hello again Seth,

I have a quick question, or rather a test case, involving NPOV. One of the first articles I edited in Wikipedia was the entry for Planck scale. After just reading a number of scientific papers, and a few articles, all of which used the term Planck scale as a measure of size, I went to the Wikipedia entry and found that definition entirely absent. (Yes absent!) Apparently; it it most common in discussions of Particle Physics that the term is used in reference to the highest possible scale of energy. That's not problematic, of itself. However; since in Astrophysics, Cosmology, Quantum gravity, and Geometry, the overwhelming majority of papers and articles use the term as a measurement of length or area, I tried to give this definition equal weight.

I later became frustrated, as the entry was repeatedly changed to reverse or dilute this characterization. The Planck scale article is once again lopsided, in my opinion. But it is still true today, that in the fields of my greatest interest, the term Planck scale is a measure of lineal, areal, or volumetric size, not energy, not time, but size. And the difference in usage is so heavily weighted in this direction that one almost never sees the term used to equate with a level of energy, in works on Cosmology or Astrophysics.

I have tried to restore NPOV on Wikipedia, when I see that one side of an issue is systematically excluded from view, like this. However, I have seen that it is fairly common. So my question to you is "how do we insure objectivity?" What can one do, when the ideal of NPOV is systematically violated, in the name of maintaining a Neutral Point of View? In my experience, Particle Physics people have often behaved like bullies, in how they have related to other Wikians. What assurance do I have, that you are not going to play the same role?

That is; can I trust you to be objective, or to approach questions outside your immediate specialty with equanimity? Can I assume that you are working toward a truly Neutral Point of View, which will help insure that Wikipedia is objective? Or can I assume that you are caught up in the reductionist paradigm to such an extent that departure from this norm appears egregious? I would really like to know where you stand, if you are to be the arbiter of an article I've written, so I don't waste my time tilting at windmills. Simply put; can you be completely objective, or do we have to find an Astrophysics expert to insure fair and balanced coverage of the issues?

JonathanD (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to explain comments Re: ACG article
Thanks for taking time to explain your edits and tags.

Agreed that without rationale section ACG entry will probably not stand test of notability. Agreed that prior to publication of CCC-II proceedings, or other sources not yet referenced, there may be difficulty proving certain general statements about the organization and its reason to be. There may be enough facts to establish notability and rationale for organization, but verifiability constraints make some of these 'facts not in evidence.' Agreed that is a "between a rock and a hard place" situation, at least for now. I'll see what other supporting references I can find, without getting even more tenuous in my connections.

Perhaps there will be enough time for me to make needed changes, before the article is deleted. I'll see what I can do.

JonathanD (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: usage of Planck Scale
Hmm.. My own reading is weighted heavily toward Planck Scale meaning the smallest realm of size. Planck areas appear to be the favored conserved or minimal quantity, not Planck lengths, at least since 't Hooft's landmark paper "Dimensional Reduction in Quantum Gravity" arXiv: gr-qc/9310026. But at least 20% of the time, I do see the term Planck Scale meaning a scale of Energy. Sorry, Seth, but my experience says PS as an energy scale is far less common, so I can't confirm the reverse. I wonder what the statistic would be if you did an arXiv search, with Planck Scale as the term to search for. Maybe I'll try that, and see.

Again - Thanks, and All the Best

JonathanD (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Its not the first time this idea comes around. The problem comes after reading the pages to be merged. "Technical terminology", etc. are written by linguists and are abstract, "Scientific jargon" is written by scientist and is intended to be very practical and straightforward. Thus, yes, theoretically, they should all be merged, but in practice, the language, purposes and coverage are too much different. Regards NIMSoffice (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not have problem with giving the page "scientific jargon" a better name. As I wrote, I could not cover all sciences there, and thus the page is rather on physical sciences. "Scientific terminology" might be Ok, but as a separate page, i.e. not merging with its current redirect page "international scientific vocabulary" which is a very different story. Regards NIMSoffice (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you review the Quark article?
I've seen that you're listed as an active participant in WikiProject physics, and particle physics is listed among your areas of interest. The article Quark is currently a featured article candidate. Could you please review it and express your comments at the nomination page and/or the talk page of the article? Thanks in advance,  A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  16:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree on the location of the data, well, we can add that data in 2009 or 2010. Cheers. — Orion11M87 (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Xkcd
Thanks for fixing my indenting....the other guy and I had an edit conflict, so I accidentally indented one too many! &mdash;Politizer( talk • contribs ) 15:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Views by differnt groups on mass
Hi, you asked about the article on relativistic mass: As already was indicated in the same line about Okun's view, professional educators and textbook writers also have notable views. Regards, Harald88 (talk) 09:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

leptons and quarks
Is it true that there should be the same number of kinds of quarks as leptons? I have an article from 1977 that describes four types of leptons.. when were the other two discovered? Did their discovery prompt search for two additional types of quarks? Tks Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 14:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oi, quarks can interact via strong and weak forces, right? Or no? Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 15:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The quark article says quarks can be observed ("can only be created and observed under special conditions"). My quickie search says they cannot. Who is right? Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 17:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition to the question above, please take a look at User:Ling.Nut/page2, and feel free to edit it mercilessly. I am not yet satisfied that it is finished, but I have to go to bed. I do think it is a great deal more perspicuous than the current lead of quark, though. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 17:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The Large Hadron Collider
Hi Seth. I have been looking for the official inauguration of the LHC. I know it was October 21 before the sector 34 dipole quench. So has the inauguration changed or delayed to Spring 2009? CERN has not released any press-releases on it. I need to know for 2008 article for scheduled events. — Orion11M87 (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but the inauguration day is different from the first beam collision day. Okay, so the inauguration is in Spring 2009? By the way, I happen to read the press release before even Freya Blekman posted it on the blog. And I am an expert on the LHC, my favorite experiment is the lovely ATLAS, and I am overly excited for the sparticles (I am a String theorist). I will meet you when I visit the LHC in 2009. Nice article about Wikipedia on symmetry Magazine. Cheers! — Orion11M87 (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. I know you are busy with the calibration of the ATLAS. I will leave the entry as is and will try to contact Dr. Aymar after the arc magnet investigation is done in late October if no inauguration decision is made. Cheers. — Orion11M87 (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) Orion11M87 (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Quark
A user has come along asking very technical questions about quarks that I can't quite get my head around. If you could take a look at these comments (see the bottom of the FAC), I'd be hugely appreciative. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

User:SCZenz/Quark
in-line comment on User:SCZenz/Quark... should I add specific details there or here? Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 15:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

quark? quark?

 * Are you still working on quark? Sorry it's taken me a while to get back around here..
 * I really hope folks aren't pissed off about the nom not passing. I really do.
 * What the article needs, in my humble opinion, is a collaboration of physicists and non-physicists, as was done with forex Georg Cantor by WP:MATHS
 * I like your intro much better than mine, generally, though at first glance mine sometimes makes assertion a bit more forcefully than yours. The more forceful wordings are also more clear, IMO. Forex:
 * 1) "bound into hadrons"
 * 2) "stable quarks are always bound very tightly together in particles called hadrons"
 * 3) "quarks do not exist as free particles in nature, but only in a bound state as components of hadrons."
 * 4) "no see 'um (both stable and unstable are not directly observable)"
 * 5) " are unstable and decay rapidly, and can be created and studied only under special conditions"
 * 6) "Since quarks are not directly observable  some of their properties can only be deduced by experiments on hadrons."
 * Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 13:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Problematic statement in matter.
Matter used to state that most of the mass of hadrons (and hence of ordinary matter) is due to kinetic energy of quarks. I tried to fix that, but this was the best I could do. Can you try to do anything better? -- Army1987 (t — c) 14:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

moving scientific jargon
As far as I understand, I am the only person who edit that page, and I do agree to move it to scientific terminology. Yes, the page should and will be expanded. Regards.NIMSoffice (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Perimeter Institute information
Hi There. It seems that I may have inadvertantly caused all of this discussion with adding links to Perimeter Outreach website and yes, I am their marketing/sponsorship manager (although marketing in a very small sense - more like communications). You are absolutely correct in stating that I wasn't aware of the policies regarding the linking and it was in no way meant to be self-serving or in this case my organizations-serving. I also didn't see the discussion or received any of the messages in time to stop adding the links back in.

As a huge fan of wikipedia, I was just skimming through what the site had on Modern Physics topics and got carried away with my enthusiasm about being able to finally contribute to the overall knowledge. I could instead actually contribute to the articles and make changes on behalf of Perimeter's expertise if this is a better use of what I have to offer. Would this be useful. Meanwhile, I'll stop adding any links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stsang (talk • contribs) 19:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My issue with the FAR process
Some of my past experiences have made me feel that the FAR process is a bit threatening, and that people who use it are more concerned with improving Wikipedia by "demoting" articles than by working on them. Putting something up at FAR feels to me to be a statement of "fix it or else," rather than just, "this probably needs to be fixed," which makes it premature for the first pass at a problem. I know a lot about particle physics, and I can make improvements to certain articles that relatively few other contributors can make, but I have limited time &mdash; and the FAR process feels precisely like an imposed time limit to me. But perhaps my impressions are unjustified &mdash; maybe I had an unusual experience in the past, or perhaps things have changed since then. -- SCZenz (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. On the other hand, posting issues to article talk pages has often proven futile, at least in my experience. The FAR at least seems to get closer scrutiny, and tends to draw in useful edits to correct significant problem. I'm sorry you feel under pressure over this.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:HadronColliderGeneric.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:HadronColliderGeneric.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  Ja Ga  talk 09:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

File:Three jet gluon jets.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Three jet gluon jets.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Three jet photon string.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Three jet photon string.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Three jet photon jets.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Three jet photon jets.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Three jet gluon string.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Three jet gluon string.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Three jet photon string.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Three jet photon string.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coaching
I saw that you were listed in the Coaches for reconfirmation section of the admin coaching status page. Could you please update your status, and if you are still interested, drop me a note on my talk page? Thanks,  Genius  101 Guestbook  14:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Black hole electron
Hi Seth, Would you care to comment about the "Pattern of equal ratios" shown in "Talk:black hole electron"?

I believe we can now add Leonard Susskind to the list of theorists who thinks "-- gravity may be the most important force holding these particles (electrons) together": from his book, The Black Hole War (page 214). DonJStevens (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)