User talk:Swlenz

Welcome
Say what you have to say.

Working on the Schuylkill Navy page for a Cornell University project
I saw that you did a lot of the heavy lifting on the Schuylkill Navy page. I am currently working on the page with a couple of my Cornell University classmates for our Online Communities class. Would you mind taking a look at what we have put up over the next couple days to make sure we are on the right track. Eddie and I, Andrew, row at Cornell, Eddie is a lightweight and I am a heavyweight. I rowed on Boathouse Row for 4 years in high school at The Shipley School, so we would love to get connected with someone else who is passionate about the sport.

Thanks! Andrew, Eddie, and Janice ~

Hull speed and racing shell
You edited both of these articles to say that racing shells are semi-displacement hulls and not limited by hull speed. Do you have any sources to back that up? I'm not sure that racing shells approach wave propogation speed, and if so, whether or not they move into semi-displacement mode at that point is moot, as they'll always be operating in the displacement mode. I'm going to do some research and see if I can find stats on LWL and speed of racing shells to see what sort of speed/length ratios they operate in. Ditto for racing canoes and kayaks. scot 20:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, found some info on racing shells. Vespoli shows their 8-shells running 56' to 58' OAL, which works out to a hull speed of 10 to 10.2 knots, assuming the LWL is not significantly shorter.  This paper puts 8-shells speeds at about 5.5 m/s.  That's 10.7 knots, so while wave drag may be less than 20% of the drag (based on the fact that skin drag is 80% according to the paper cited) it sounds like the hull may well be limited by hull speed--else why bother making it 56' long?  Additional length just adds more surface area to create more skin drag.  scot 20:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I replied to your response on my talk page.  scot 15:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're interested in some of the AYRS towing tank tests of the long, thin hulls I have a copy someone scanned in and sent me. E-mail me at fluzwup at yahoo dot com and I'll forward it to you.  And I just read that NY Times article yesterday, and was bemoaning to a friend the lack of a good, cheap, inboard diesel generator/outboard electric hybrid kicker motor for my sailboat.  Something that would give you the instant on/off and quiet operation when running off batteries for low speed work, and the ability to fire up the diesel for extended running time and extra amps.  I used a stern mount trolling motor on my old 13 foot pocket cruiser, and it was great except for that time I took it out in the 25-35 knot winds--it wouldn't even prevent leeway with the boat pointed straight into the wind, with the mast bare.  With the 21 footer I picked up this summer (which, BTW, ended the drought in Oklahoma--never did get it on the water) I'm torn between the 3hp MinnKota electric motor I got for it and the 6hp Evinrude outboard it came with.   scot 20:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about?
Says it all really. You recklessly acuse me of flaming you when I don't even know you. And I have the proof...

"I go to a Wikipedia article Standard Model and before I can log on I have this message from you.

The IP address I logged onto is floating and assigned by the server (along with maybe several million other people who use the same system.) I was not amused to unreasonably be subject to your rant:

"Moronator, you amuse us all with your stupidity."

I say go look in a mirror."

I say 'Not until you do'. I mean, to acuse someone of flaming someone else he doesn't know...I've never heard of you before, anyway.


 * Editor's note: The person who wrote the above, User:CBFan, flamed several dynamic IPs not realizing that his messages were going to people other than his intended victims.  I was an innocent party who got his flame and was upset.  I complained (maybe a bit too hard) and pointed out his error, and this is his response.

Just so you know, the flames I was sending were to people (idiots) who were continually posting nonsense on the Zoo Tycoon 2: Dino Danger Pack. People with nothing better to do with their life. Not you, obviously (or I'd like to hope you're not that kind of person).

Capitalization of headings
You asked about the "rules" governing this here; they're pretty well laid out here (from the "Manual of style"). (It's in the subsection titled "Wording".) Notice that the Wiki-convention is closer to newspaper usage, rather than formal academic usage, so only proper nouns are capitalized.+ILike2BeAnonymous 01:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Gladstone,Steve.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Gladstone,Steve.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Strangerer (Talk) 22:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Editor's note. Said image was upload several years ago and, as stated at the time, was from a University of California PR brochure and deemed fair use.

Transfer tax
Dear fellow editor: I made a few changes to the material on Knowlton v. Moore in the article.

There were four basic holdings, or rulings, in the case. Three involved constitutional interpretation, and the fourth involved only statutory construction. The four rulings may be summarized as:


 * 1. The estate tax in the form of a tax on the transfer of property at death is an excise (indirect tax).


 * 2. The Constitutional provision for uniformity for indirect taxes requires geographic uniformity, but not intrinsic uniformity.


 * 3. Congress has the power to impose an estate tax on the transfer of property at death.


 * 4. The estate tax statute in question imposed the tax on the transfer of personal property, and not on the entire estate (statutory construction).

(The numbering system is my own, not the Court’s.)

As explained below, nowhere in the case did the Court rule that the Congress could not impose a property tax, or that the power to impose a property tax was held only by state governments. By “property tax” I mean a tax on property “by reason of its ownership” -- essentially similar to the kind of local property taxes that many people pay on home or business real estate for example.

In order to understand this more clearly, we need to remember that under U.S. Constitutional law, three of the most important functions of government are taxing, spending, and regulating. Military defense and other functions can be appreciated as well, but in Knowlton the Court was concerned mainly with the power to tax and the power to regulate.

Under the case law, the Congressional power to tax and the power to spend are virtually unlimited. The power to regulate, however, has historically been somewhat limited (at least when compared with the power to tax and the power to spend).

When the Court in Knowlton discussed the issue behind holding number 3, the Court noted that one party had argued that the states, and not the Federal government, had the power to REGULATE the transmission of property. The further argument was made that only a State could TAX the transmission of property at death.

In discussing these claims, the Court assumed for the sake of argument that Congress could not REGULATE the transmission of property at death, without actually deciding that issue. Note that the estate tax in question was not a tax on property “by reason of its ownership.” It was a tax on the TRANSFER of property at death.

The Court rejected the argument that ONLY a State could tax the transmission of property at death.

Further, the Court never ruled that ONLY a state could impose an ordinary property tax – a tax on property “by reason of its ownership. Indeed, that issue was not even presented to the Court.

On a separate note, the courts have repeatedly ruled that there is virtually no limit on the KINDS of taxes Congress may impose. There are various restrictions, such as apportionment by state population for direct taxes (other than any income taxes deemed to be direct), geographical uniformity (for indirect taxes), no taxes on exports, revenue measures must originate in the House of Representatives, etc., but those restrictions have ultimately imposed no great impediments to the power of taxation under the 1986 Internal Revenue Code. For example, with respect to income taxes, only one provision of the 1986 Code has ever been ruled unconstitutional, and that decision stood for only a few months, after which the court issuing that ruling vacated its own judgment. One harbor maintenance tax under the '86 Code has been ruled unconstitutional (but that's not an income tax).

However, property taxes -- that is, property taxes imposed "by reason of ownership" -- ordinary ad valorem property taxes, if imposed by Congress, probably wouldn't work. Property taxes imposed by reason of ownership would be considered direct taxes and would have to be imposed among the taxpayers of each state in proportion to the population. (In other words, because such a tax would not be an income tax, the Sixteenth Amendment would not apply, which means that the tax would have to be apportioned by population.) Since the property values among states vary wildly, the resulting property taxes, would virtually never correspond to population.

In other words, although there is no Constitutional restriction on the KIND of tax (such as a property tax by reason of ownership), this particular kind of national property tax could be almost impossible to impose -- simply because of the apportionment requirement.

The only kind of national property tax that would seem to be reasonably possible would be one imposed as a uniform dollar amount on each property owner in each state, regardless of the value of the property. Even that kind could be difficult to apportion among the states by population. At any rate, that would be a pretty weird property tax. Yours, Famspear 03:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Editor's note, there is probably far less disagreement between Famspear and myself on the issue set forth above then would normally be implied by his statements. He seems to be fairly knowledgeable about taxation, its theories and its history in the US (including some oddities like the above, which make legal sense, but not practicle sense), and I would hope that I am too.  Swlenz 22:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Swlenz: I need to correct myself on one point. Two examples of "kinds" of taxes that are prohibited are taxes on articles exported from a state (Article I, sec. 9, cl. 5) and poll taxes (24th Amendment), relating to the right to vote for President, Vice President, U.S. Senator or U.S. Representative without having to pay a tax. Yours, Famspear 04:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Rating Mountains
Thanks for your remarks on the project page. It's good to see more folks participating there. Response: Please re-read the criterion for rating mountains and you will see this: ''Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to several audiences —but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.'' Also, Mount Mitchell is the highest point in the Appalachians, which according to the criterion, means that it should be "top" rated. But again, this isn't an international popularity contest, and I think that it's safe to say that it is hard to know just what is well known to someone on the other side of the globe.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The Google stats are interesting, but Google hits are not considered criteria for notability/importance on Wikipedia (I believe you'll find and explanation in WP:Notability, but don't quote me on that). I don't think most editors want Google or any other internet search engine becoming the defining factor of notability for an encyclopedia. If you think about it, it makes sense; I could go deeper into it if you'd like, but a number of obvious reasons (some potentially alarming) will probably jump out at you if you give it some thought. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. If none do jump out at you, let me know & I'll go there.

As for how many mountains make it to the "top" category, I don't see that as a big issue, unless Wikipedia is running short on hard drive space. Is there a reason why the top category should not have several thousand mountains in it? I can see an expansion of the ratings system to include a wider range; that would make sense.

Finally, you should not miss the point that importance is not rated on a global scale. Many people assume it is, but if you check out the criterion carefully (see my quote above), you'll see this is not so. This makes sense for a number of reasons. Take, for instance, the Western Ghats in India. Here you have a mountain range that, although not well known in Europe and the U.S., is located in one of the most populous places on earth. The city of Bombay is located at the foot of the Ghats. The range has a great deal of religious and cultural significance to an enormous number of people. It is among the most biodiverse areas on earth. But how many people know about it in the U.S.? The point is, as people who are living in North America, and within specific regions in North America, it becomes too easy for us to start rating importance from our biased regional perspectives--POV which has no place in an encyclopedic work. It's easy for me to think that just because I am educated (I have two degrees), that I have some idea of what might be important on the other side of the globe or continent, but it's a bad practice to get into, a pitfall of ignorance. By extension, this idea of regional bias can be carried to any number of other milieus, for instance, a particular DNA sequence might be of absolute critical importance to the study of cancer among physicians or the evolution of life to natural historians, but fall outside the radar of the general population. And yet, it is highly notable within those subject areas. A Wikiproject associated with DNA might rate those things quite highly, even though other DNA topics might have broader notability among the general public (and more Google hits). Again, this is not a popularity contest (or an internet popularity contest); this is an encyclopedia.

As far as Mount Mitchell, it is the highest point in the Appalachians. High points in major ranges are generally rated "top" or higher importance. Why is Mount Everest so important to human beings? Because it is the highest point on earth, and we human beings tend to attach an unusual significance to such measurements. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, ratings are, unfortunatly, being done primarily by one editor, who seems to have an unusual drive to rate mountain articles. I've asked him to slow down a bit, as some of the ratings appear hastily tagged, but he doesn't seem inclined to curb. But hey, anyone can rate the articles; you too can contribute. If there are mountains that you know of that deserve higher ratings, please feel free to make those changes. I would caution anyone, however, to be careful about rating mountains they are not familiar with.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Swlenz, it looks like you are the person who lowered the ratings on Mitchell and Washington. I'm curious why you suggested it was someone else. Please feel free to upgrade Rainier and whatnot; if you would like to downgrade Washington and Mitchell, I suggest we take it to the project page and see what others think. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S., yes, I agree that the tagging is inconsistant. Such is Wikipedia; it's a collaborative effort. Clearly more carefully considered rating system may be in order, or, better yet (and I had already been thinking of this) do away with it entirely. many other projects do not have such a system and are no worse for it. . .in light of the length of this debate, we could have invested our time in actually writing articles about mountains. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kapp SI.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Kapp SI.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Parker SI.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Parker SI.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Swlenz! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Steve Gladstone -
 * 2) Marnie McBean -

National Collegiate Rowing Championship
I just noticed that an editor added a note re possible deletion, re National Collegiate Rowing Championship. Do you know of a source for this? I thought you'd like to know, as I just noticed in the "View history" that you created the article. I've added it as a cross-reference to some of the winning colleges' articles. Eagle4000 (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Resolute Racing Shells


The article Resolute Racing Shells has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No indication that subject meets WP:NORG, let alone WP:GNG."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jmertel23 (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)