Archive #2 All messages from the beginning of 2007 up to the end of March, 2007.
This is an article that is not on my watch list so it is new to me. I am breaking my usual habit of replying to comments on my talk page there and I am replying here. I ask you to reply on my talk page and the debate can go on there. It is getting late at night here and I am rather exhausted as last night was too hot to sleep well. I am therefore asking you and User:Hallenrm to both try to state clearly on my talk page what you think the problem with this article is and why you are disagreeing. Could you please do that? I will try to help tomorrow or whenever I get your views. I really am not sure that you are far apart. There is often an artificial difference between how chemists and physicists think. Please try to remain civil to each other. -- Bduke 11:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
ull find my response on the talk page...and actually i was quite interested in gerontology myself...and senescence delay in particular...anyways...good day... Benjiwolf 19:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
TNX! zowie 00:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your recent edit, I'm curious about the details of your edit summary. You edited the article text to say:
Billy Clanton was shot through the right arm, close to the wrist joint (Keefe testified the bullet passed through the arm from "inside to outside," entering the arm close to the base of the thumb, and exiting "on the back of the wrist diagonally" with the latter wound larger)
With this in the edit summary:
Difficult for bullet to go from thumb to outside of arm with arm in any "up" position. This becomes important to final Spicer verdict)
I'm not an expert on this particular gunfight or the Spicer verdict you mention, but if you mean to say that the injury would be difficult to sustain if Clanton were in the act of surrender with arms raised, I disagree.. It's difficult to explain using text but if Clanton had his right hand raised that injury seems entirely consistent... especially if the attacker was firing from Clanton's left. Robotsintrouble 07:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
In response to shot on wrist: "It went from the inside to the outside." Course of ball was diagnonal across the wrist [here witness illustrates upon the arm of Mr. Fitch, the direction in which the ball passed through the arm of Billy Clanton, by showing that the ball entered nearly in line with the base of the thumb, and emerged on the back of the wrist diagonally.] Says the orifice on the outside of the wrist was the largest. Did not see any powder burn on Billy Clanton's body or clothing."
So far as I know, that's all the info history has for us. Except that we know the demo apparently convinced the judge. From our description we can put this in various ways-- obviously in anatomic position the base of thumb is lateral with arm down and there's no way to get a bullet into it except to rotate the forearm somewhat inward so the thumbside (what we usually call the lateral side of the forearm) is more forward, so it can receive a bullet. You can do that easily with the arm down and rotated 45 degrees inward, naturally. It's very hard to get into that position (thumb forward, ventral surface diagonally exactly behind, to allow a posterior exit on the ventral/back wrist) with the arm UP. Because you really have to crank that arm around to get the thumb in front, with the arm raised. That's what the judge apparently concluded. We have only verbal description.
Finally, I might add that the bullet may well have hit Billy while he was in the act of drawing his pistol from a holster, which would for a moment have put him in exactly the right position to get a bullet above the thumb and out through the back of the wrist. Ty it. S B H arris 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
If you want something protected, just go to WP:RFPP and request it, and it will hopefully be taken care of. As for actually being able to protect them, that's an admin-only tool. Wizardman 03:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hm? The page history shows an unusually high amount of IP edits quickly followed by reverts. I'm not sure where it's coming from, but not sure if it's important (could be wrong). Luna Santin 02:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. After some reflection I changed back your most recent edit to the above, as I thought the previous version read better (listing the protective equipment in more detail). I note your qualifications from your talk page and your experience as a Wikipedian, and don't want to appear high-handed in reverting the edit. If you disagree with my reverson, I am happy to discuss. Jeendan 03:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jeendan"
I found the name when pushing List of elements by symbol to featured list status; it's listed there as a discredited discovery of Plutonium. Redirects are cheap, so I don't see a problem with keeping it. -- Spangineer ws (háblame) 02:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. Personally, I don't really care (chemistry isn't actually a real interest of mine). I think it would be fine to just mention these in the Plutonium article, but perhaps creating a short article at Hesperium would be better. Heh, but it'll probably be only a month before someone comes along and wants to merge it =). Anyway, I'll put up a stub on Hesperium from those sources, and switch the redirect. -- Spangineer ws (háblame) 02:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
You once objected to the removal of the ballistics data in the Performance section of the .45 ACP article. Since we last spoke, the cartridge infobox has evolved to include more data. Any objections now? If not, I plan to remove it as it is fairly redundant. — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 19:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Sbharris: Please see this helium talk subject regarding the crystal structure of helium. I'm contacting you because I see from your contribs that you frequently write about chemistry. If you are sufficiently expert on the subject, I hope you’d weigh in. By the way, I note that your interests seem to parallel mine a great deal. Not only am I interested in scientific topics, but I ran a company back in the ’70s and ’80s that made exploding handgun ammunition. I sold it all over the U.S. and overseas. Greg L 15:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming you're going to expand upon the new pages you've created - Convective heat transfer, Conductive heat transfer, Radiative heat transfer, Forced heat convection, and Natural heat convection, right? If they stay empty like that, they're likely to be Speedily Deleted. Just checking :) -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 06:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Get a life —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.75.29.43 ( talk) 05:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
I'm sorry to bother you, but I'm not responsible for what has been vandalized in your atomic nucleus page. The IP address that I took a look at in the History tab does not match mine. Normally if I did do something, and I know it, I would have accepted your little warning thing and moved on with my life.
Look, I do have a record of doing some dumb crap to some of the pages on this site, but saying that I could be moving around computer to computer just to mess up pages is beyond crazy. I don't have THAT much time to mess up stuff here. Ok, it's plausible to give me a warning when it truly is my own dumb edit, and sure, I'll be responsible for it, but what you're about to do is blame every dumb shit no life in Canada, or in the region, on me so I'm automatically put on the spotlight. That's almost Nazism, where Hitler blames all his life problems to the Jews. Maybe it seemed ok to him, but frig that's dang unfair to the ones persecuted.
Make sure that you actually have some plausible evidence, like the way I vandalize pages or something, or maybe the stuff I edit, before you accuse me of doing something.
[user: 70.51.91.221]
Thank you for your time.
Hi, please provide a source for this . My references state 92 naturally occuring elements. -- Sadi Carnot 00:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Any chance you can shorten your incredibly long statement on the RFC? Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Abbreviated one left;
There are ordinary vandals and malicious people on WIkipedia. It reflects the real world, after all. However, my ONLY negative experience with a Wikipedia *administrator* to date, in all the time I've been here, has been with *Essjay*. Otherwise I wouldn't know him from Adam, Cardinal Wolsey, or Torqumada. Hence, this note. The full note is on my TALK page, as I've been asked to abbreviate here.
Introduction: I'm a scientist, basically-- an ordinary editor who first discovered Wikipedia in Nov, 2005 and by now has about 5000 edits on about 1000 articles (cleaning up and expanding medicine, chemistry, physics, history, and other stuff like that). I'm a physician with multiple qualifications and a long CV of science publications, academic positions, and a patent list, and all these are (ahem) real, not fake. I also edit under my real name (how many reading this have the balls for this?), as I have done so also for many years on USENET also. Where you can all anybody anything, and stalk them for nothing. And those credentials you're welcome to look up with the California Board of Medical Quality Assurance. (STEVEN BRADLEY HARRIS, MD G52760). I run a research lab for a living.
Soon after beginning editing here, as a newbie, I found myself locked out of Wikipedia completely, for participating in a legal discussion over what kinds of things can get people sued in the real world for libel. I hadn't made any threats myself (and indeed at that time was such a clueless newbie I didn't even know THAT was a no-no), but it didn't matter. I found myself blocked and locked out by some entity calling itselfs "ESSJAY". Here is his note and his reason, and the link [3], which you will find are all improper, and were promptly reverted by another admin who had found reason for a personal dislike of Essjay, to rival MY now-building one. In any case, in the maintime, I said: WHAT??? I found I couldn't even appeal about it on Wikipedia, due to the fact that blocks of this nature prevent you from even doing THAT. If you're blocked, you can't even appeal to ArbCom. You have to write email to JIMBO or the Lawyer BradPatrick or something. But once unblocked, I could take it to ArbCom. Where I did, and where it promptly died. Essay's just too powerful, they more or less let me know. He's on there, too.
Here's what Brad Patrick, the Official Wiki attorney, said about it, on personal email to me (paraphrase, since it was personal mail) "Wow, you certainly picked a really POWERFUL administrator to tangle with". By which time I'm now really saying to myself (and everybody else): "Who IS this ESSJAY GUY??" (actually, more like "WTF IS THIS GUY???"), Powers are *dispensed* by people like Wikipedia's lawyers-- they don't just take them as handed down from God. So I thought. So maybe this is Jimbo's father-in-law or something. I did a little checking and found Essjay flashed on the scene not that long ago, and was immediately given ranks and privileges and powers on Wikipedia at such an astounding clip (and he now has them ALL), that I figured he couldn't be anything other than a senior programmer or founder-still-in-good-graces with Jimbo. Wrong again.
When I see people promoted that fast, for no obvious reason, in any kind of normal non-public business, I assume they're sleeping with the boss. Or there's some relationship between somebody's proboscis and somebody else's alimentary canal which makes for poor respiratory function. But I had no way of knowing in this case, and gave up. Later (like everybody else), I read the NY mag which mentions Essjay as a new and shinny Big-Wig on Wikipedia, and assumed that Essjay's academic robes and caps (which he was incautious enough to claim in print to a reporter, as you see above) and gowns and chains and whatnot, had impressed and overawed everybody (particularly JIMBO) so much, that WikiMedia just had to call him to Rome/Florida and make him a "Cardinal."
Wrong, too, now, I see. So what gives? I still haven't a clue, although the proboscis theory is gaining.
Now, aside from Jimbo's publicity problem, what's Essjay's problem? It is this. He's an anonymous *&%$ with too much power, he got it too fast, and he's capable of abusing it. And nobody at Wikipedia really rides herd on him, as I find out from the pitiful note from Brad Patrick, obviously following Jimbo's lead. So. Here we are.
What do I WANT? I *don't* want Essay banned, as he tried to ban me. I believe in redemption. If he does good editorial work, fine. And if he's dishonest, that's his problem. Though personally, I really, really hate dishonesty and hypocrisy, as it can be the death of what I for a living in science. For Essjay and his presumably Roman Catholic God, maybe 10 Hail Marys and an Act of Contrition is enough.
But more than dishonesty, I hate the abuse of power, and the abuse of ways to attain it. If I caught one of my own employees with a lying CV and caught him abusing A VOLUNTEER by trying to lock him out (like the attempt to block me unilaterally and indefinitely, in Essjay's case), as the boss HERE in my fiefdom I'd make sure that first abusive administrator would be out the door so fast he'd have to be opening the locking bar with his butt, inasmuch as his arms would be full of his desk belongings he was holding with both arms, in the cardboard box he'd be carrying out, as I watched him go through the front building door on day #1. I make sure my employees don't abuse the staff, and I surely don't let them abuse newbies and volunteers. How Jimbo runs his business, is his problem. This is free advice, so take it for what it is worth.
What I WANT, therefore, is to see Essjay relieved of any power to block nameuser editors (vs. IPs and checkuser IP socks, which he's free to go wild with, for all I care). If you have a nameuser editor acting up, if he has good history, you have plenty of time for ArbCom. Thus, you don't need Essjay, and his bolts from the blue. (Nutshell: Nobody Expects The Spanish Inquisition, and Nobody Expects Essjay, either). Essjay's problem is that he just can't handle this with the delicacy he needs for it. IP vandals are one thing. Blocking a new username editor in violation of WP:AGF and certainly WP: DON'T BITE NEWBIES, let alone messing with WP policy on legal arcane-ia without consulting anybody, is quite another.
Now, I haven't gotten word one of apology from Essjay, nor from the people (Jimbo, Brian Patrick) who let him run roughshod on name-user editors. I don't expect one. Nor, in the circumstances, do I care if I get one now, since most of this is by now, in the nature of "sorry I got caught". But This note is to let you know I'm here. Until somebody manages to get me banned from Wikipedia permanently for speaking my mind, I'll be here, like the Recording Angel from Hell, every time Essay comes up. This was my worst experience on Wikipedia by far, and it is due solely to Essjay, and the people who are responsible for him, but don't watch him. And, yeah, almost a year later, I'm still really, really, REALLY angry about it. I don't get how people can engage in Wiki-stalking and other "meatspace" actions which happen for essentially cyberspace infractions. But after my interaction with Essjay, I suddenly, for the first time UNDERSTOOD it. If you've put a lot of work in, and you really haven't done anything to deserve that kind of treatment, you can see why people go off the deep end if you get removed from somebody's website. So my thanks for finally getting me to understand that. I'm a better editor for it.
And it's been worth my time to write, because I feel a lot better for giving my opinion on an admin who smelled bad to me, right from the very first electron of communication I got from him. If *this* letter has been too long (sorry!), my apologies for that. S B H arris 22:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
For good or for bad, he is gone. Getting sad or happy or even blaming others is not necessary. He is no more. You have had bad experiences? Well, it is up to you: forget and continue your life, stay clouded by "what ifs", stalk him. I don't care. Do you think you are the only one who has had a bad experience in Wikipedia? This is an optional place. If it hurts you so much, maybe you should take a break. -- ReyBrujo 18:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Please help at User talk:Jimbo Wales. I've added some ideas there. Your input would be appreciated. WAS 4.250 21:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Sbharris: I want to avoid a revert of my revert in E=mc². Putting this message here on your talk page allows you to delete this message at your convenience. The Boltzmann constant simply relates temperature to kinetic energy. Nothing more. It has nothing whatsover to do with specific heat capacity or moles. The related formula (Emean = 3/2KbT) merely specifies how, for a bulk quantity of a substance, to apply the the constant to find the mean kinetic energy added by an increase in temperature. Technically, that formula is used to find the total kinetic energy in a substance given only its temperature in kelvins. However, it works fine to find an incremental increase in kinetic energy given a incremental increase in temperature. Greg L 05:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, delete this incredibly bad sentence, which can't be fixed at all, as is, study your physics, and return wiser.
The bad sentence:
Raising the temperature of an object by 100 °C increases its mass by 2.3043 × 10–36 g. [1]
S
B
H
arris
05:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi am from Germany and after the Essjay skandal i had a closer look on the english wikipedia and read your postings. The differnces are quite fascinating. The german wikipeda, the second bigest wikipedia in size, is ruled by experts. To proof my point have a look on homeopathy http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hom%C3%B6opathie#Kritik_an_der_Hom.C3.B6opathie in the german wikipedia chapter 5 is named Criticism 5.1 no proof of efficacy 5.2 no plausible mechanism 5.3 internal contradictions 5.4 dangers 5.5 miscellaneous criticism. This chapter has a very strong scientific POV and there is just one lousy weblink is in it as reference. If someone comes around in the discussion page and says: "hey this is POV!" the physicans will say: "So what?" and if he writes "There are no refernces in the critism chapter so i doubt it is correct." The physicans will say: "Well i am Physican i know that this is right, so you have to prove ME that it is not correct.". Also there is no need for consenses, the german wikipedia doesn't have that rule and in the AfD it is not a vote but an exchange of arguments and even if a majority like 70% says keep, the admin will delete the article if he is the arguments for deletion are stronger in his opinion. I wonder if germans tend to authoric systems more so that there wiki is authoric too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.133.146.6 ( talk) 01:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
i see that youre a licensed physician. maybe you can help us proofread the subject article. any change in context is highly appreciated. happy wikiying †Bloodpack† 20:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Anytime energy is added to a system, the system gains mass. For instance, lifting a one-kilogram mass upwards one meter against the force of one standard gravity increases its mass by 109.114 femtograms (1 fg = 1 × 10–15 g). [2]
Hi, I noticed you did a lot of work on the Wyatt Earp entry. I seems to have been vandalized a lot recently. I am not very knowledgeable on the subject and can not make heads or tails of it. I would revert, but feel I could make it worse than what it already is. Thank-you, an annon user that doesn't want to screw things up. 24.158.102.32 18:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If you'd like my admin status removed, you are welcome to open a Request for Comment, or a Request for Arbitration. Let me know if you need any assistance. As usual, I'll be busy editing productively, but I'd be happy to give you support. Cheers! alphachimp 13:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I think alphachimp needs chilling out too. Please let me know if you do open an RFC on him because I also think he needs desysopping , as does any admin who indefinitely blocks an account for an isolated edit without warning or discussion. I don't know why he thinks his logs will be illuminating: do they show him often doing this kind of thing, and he's proud of it? Grace Note 00:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I am really interested to hear all of your complaints/concerns about me. Why not just come over to my talk page and present me with an enumerated list? If you don't prefer that venue, I might just open up an RfC myself. There's no point in brooding over it. Let's get this out into the open. And no, that's not sarcasm. alphachimp 04:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Im not entirely sure what you meant by your comment in Gold. What does the staff have something for me to do? Im lost! James Random
Having previously discussed admin actions with you (Essjay, and now I see you involved in similar with alphachimp) that are perhaps less positive than I personally would like admin actions to be, I thought I'd bring this idea to you to see what you think.
Idea: Formation of a user-only (non-admin) committee-of-sorts to monitor admin actions and recommend changes to both the ways that admins who make aggregious errors are dealt with, and to the path users can take in dispute resolutions that involve admins.
Basically, 'WPAdminWatch' (I dislike that name, but will use it for the purpose of discussion), would have two mandates:
Of course, me saying this, I expect some admins won't be at all happy with the concept and will fight it every step of the way. However, if done correctly and not with a hate-on for admins, this could be very constructive and well within the spirit of community in WP.
Your thoughts? -- Kickstart70- T- C 19:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'm off for a week to scuba with sea turtles in Hawaii, and if when I return I'm not unwound enough (and that should do it if anything could) then I'll start this process off myself, if somebody else hasn't done it before me. Meanwhile, don't mistake my silence for lack of interest. And feel free to start things yourself. S B H arris 04:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Archive #2 All messages from the beginning of 2007 up to the end of March, 2007.
This is an article that is not on my watch list so it is new to me. I am breaking my usual habit of replying to comments on my talk page there and I am replying here. I ask you to reply on my talk page and the debate can go on there. It is getting late at night here and I am rather exhausted as last night was too hot to sleep well. I am therefore asking you and User:Hallenrm to both try to state clearly on my talk page what you think the problem with this article is and why you are disagreeing. Could you please do that? I will try to help tomorrow or whenever I get your views. I really am not sure that you are far apart. There is often an artificial difference between how chemists and physicists think. Please try to remain civil to each other. -- Bduke 11:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
ull find my response on the talk page...and actually i was quite interested in gerontology myself...and senescence delay in particular...anyways...good day... Benjiwolf 19:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
TNX! zowie 00:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your recent edit, I'm curious about the details of your edit summary. You edited the article text to say:
Billy Clanton was shot through the right arm, close to the wrist joint (Keefe testified the bullet passed through the arm from "inside to outside," entering the arm close to the base of the thumb, and exiting "on the back of the wrist diagonally" with the latter wound larger)
With this in the edit summary:
Difficult for bullet to go from thumb to outside of arm with arm in any "up" position. This becomes important to final Spicer verdict)
I'm not an expert on this particular gunfight or the Spicer verdict you mention, but if you mean to say that the injury would be difficult to sustain if Clanton were in the act of surrender with arms raised, I disagree.. It's difficult to explain using text but if Clanton had his right hand raised that injury seems entirely consistent... especially if the attacker was firing from Clanton's left. Robotsintrouble 07:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
In response to shot on wrist: "It went from the inside to the outside." Course of ball was diagnonal across the wrist [here witness illustrates upon the arm of Mr. Fitch, the direction in which the ball passed through the arm of Billy Clanton, by showing that the ball entered nearly in line with the base of the thumb, and emerged on the back of the wrist diagonally.] Says the orifice on the outside of the wrist was the largest. Did not see any powder burn on Billy Clanton's body or clothing."
So far as I know, that's all the info history has for us. Except that we know the demo apparently convinced the judge. From our description we can put this in various ways-- obviously in anatomic position the base of thumb is lateral with arm down and there's no way to get a bullet into it except to rotate the forearm somewhat inward so the thumbside (what we usually call the lateral side of the forearm) is more forward, so it can receive a bullet. You can do that easily with the arm down and rotated 45 degrees inward, naturally. It's very hard to get into that position (thumb forward, ventral surface diagonally exactly behind, to allow a posterior exit on the ventral/back wrist) with the arm UP. Because you really have to crank that arm around to get the thumb in front, with the arm raised. That's what the judge apparently concluded. We have only verbal description.
Finally, I might add that the bullet may well have hit Billy while he was in the act of drawing his pistol from a holster, which would for a moment have put him in exactly the right position to get a bullet above the thumb and out through the back of the wrist. Ty it. S B H arris 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
If you want something protected, just go to WP:RFPP and request it, and it will hopefully be taken care of. As for actually being able to protect them, that's an admin-only tool. Wizardman 03:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hm? The page history shows an unusually high amount of IP edits quickly followed by reverts. I'm not sure where it's coming from, but not sure if it's important (could be wrong). Luna Santin 02:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. After some reflection I changed back your most recent edit to the above, as I thought the previous version read better (listing the protective equipment in more detail). I note your qualifications from your talk page and your experience as a Wikipedian, and don't want to appear high-handed in reverting the edit. If you disagree with my reverson, I am happy to discuss. Jeendan 03:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jeendan"
I found the name when pushing List of elements by symbol to featured list status; it's listed there as a discredited discovery of Plutonium. Redirects are cheap, so I don't see a problem with keeping it. -- Spangineer ws (háblame) 02:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. Personally, I don't really care (chemistry isn't actually a real interest of mine). I think it would be fine to just mention these in the Plutonium article, but perhaps creating a short article at Hesperium would be better. Heh, but it'll probably be only a month before someone comes along and wants to merge it =). Anyway, I'll put up a stub on Hesperium from those sources, and switch the redirect. -- Spangineer ws (háblame) 02:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
You once objected to the removal of the ballistics data in the Performance section of the .45 ACP article. Since we last spoke, the cartridge infobox has evolved to include more data. Any objections now? If not, I plan to remove it as it is fairly redundant. — Thernlund ( Talk | Contribs) 19:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Sbharris: Please see this helium talk subject regarding the crystal structure of helium. I'm contacting you because I see from your contribs that you frequently write about chemistry. If you are sufficiently expert on the subject, I hope you’d weigh in. By the way, I note that your interests seem to parallel mine a great deal. Not only am I interested in scientific topics, but I ran a company back in the ’70s and ’80s that made exploding handgun ammunition. I sold it all over the U.S. and overseas. Greg L 15:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming you're going to expand upon the new pages you've created - Convective heat transfer, Conductive heat transfer, Radiative heat transfer, Forced heat convection, and Natural heat convection, right? If they stay empty like that, they're likely to be Speedily Deleted. Just checking :) -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 06:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Get a life —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.75.29.43 ( talk) 05:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
I'm sorry to bother you, but I'm not responsible for what has been vandalized in your atomic nucleus page. The IP address that I took a look at in the History tab does not match mine. Normally if I did do something, and I know it, I would have accepted your little warning thing and moved on with my life.
Look, I do have a record of doing some dumb crap to some of the pages on this site, but saying that I could be moving around computer to computer just to mess up pages is beyond crazy. I don't have THAT much time to mess up stuff here. Ok, it's plausible to give me a warning when it truly is my own dumb edit, and sure, I'll be responsible for it, but what you're about to do is blame every dumb shit no life in Canada, or in the region, on me so I'm automatically put on the spotlight. That's almost Nazism, where Hitler blames all his life problems to the Jews. Maybe it seemed ok to him, but frig that's dang unfair to the ones persecuted.
Make sure that you actually have some plausible evidence, like the way I vandalize pages or something, or maybe the stuff I edit, before you accuse me of doing something.
[user: 70.51.91.221]
Thank you for your time.
Hi, please provide a source for this . My references state 92 naturally occuring elements. -- Sadi Carnot 00:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Any chance you can shorten your incredibly long statement on the RFC? Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Abbreviated one left;
There are ordinary vandals and malicious people on WIkipedia. It reflects the real world, after all. However, my ONLY negative experience with a Wikipedia *administrator* to date, in all the time I've been here, has been with *Essjay*. Otherwise I wouldn't know him from Adam, Cardinal Wolsey, or Torqumada. Hence, this note. The full note is on my TALK page, as I've been asked to abbreviate here.
Introduction: I'm a scientist, basically-- an ordinary editor who first discovered Wikipedia in Nov, 2005 and by now has about 5000 edits on about 1000 articles (cleaning up and expanding medicine, chemistry, physics, history, and other stuff like that). I'm a physician with multiple qualifications and a long CV of science publications, academic positions, and a patent list, and all these are (ahem) real, not fake. I also edit under my real name (how many reading this have the balls for this?), as I have done so also for many years on USENET also. Where you can all anybody anything, and stalk them for nothing. And those credentials you're welcome to look up with the California Board of Medical Quality Assurance. (STEVEN BRADLEY HARRIS, MD G52760). I run a research lab for a living.
Soon after beginning editing here, as a newbie, I found myself locked out of Wikipedia completely, for participating in a legal discussion over what kinds of things can get people sued in the real world for libel. I hadn't made any threats myself (and indeed at that time was such a clueless newbie I didn't even know THAT was a no-no), but it didn't matter. I found myself blocked and locked out by some entity calling itselfs "ESSJAY". Here is his note and his reason, and the link [3], which you will find are all improper, and were promptly reverted by another admin who had found reason for a personal dislike of Essjay, to rival MY now-building one. In any case, in the maintime, I said: WHAT??? I found I couldn't even appeal about it on Wikipedia, due to the fact that blocks of this nature prevent you from even doing THAT. If you're blocked, you can't even appeal to ArbCom. You have to write email to JIMBO or the Lawyer BradPatrick or something. But once unblocked, I could take it to ArbCom. Where I did, and where it promptly died. Essay's just too powerful, they more or less let me know. He's on there, too.
Here's what Brad Patrick, the Official Wiki attorney, said about it, on personal email to me (paraphrase, since it was personal mail) "Wow, you certainly picked a really POWERFUL administrator to tangle with". By which time I'm now really saying to myself (and everybody else): "Who IS this ESSJAY GUY??" (actually, more like "WTF IS THIS GUY???"), Powers are *dispensed* by people like Wikipedia's lawyers-- they don't just take them as handed down from God. So I thought. So maybe this is Jimbo's father-in-law or something. I did a little checking and found Essjay flashed on the scene not that long ago, and was immediately given ranks and privileges and powers on Wikipedia at such an astounding clip (and he now has them ALL), that I figured he couldn't be anything other than a senior programmer or founder-still-in-good-graces with Jimbo. Wrong again.
When I see people promoted that fast, for no obvious reason, in any kind of normal non-public business, I assume they're sleeping with the boss. Or there's some relationship between somebody's proboscis and somebody else's alimentary canal which makes for poor respiratory function. But I had no way of knowing in this case, and gave up. Later (like everybody else), I read the NY mag which mentions Essjay as a new and shinny Big-Wig on Wikipedia, and assumed that Essjay's academic robes and caps (which he was incautious enough to claim in print to a reporter, as you see above) and gowns and chains and whatnot, had impressed and overawed everybody (particularly JIMBO) so much, that WikiMedia just had to call him to Rome/Florida and make him a "Cardinal."
Wrong, too, now, I see. So what gives? I still haven't a clue, although the proboscis theory is gaining.
Now, aside from Jimbo's publicity problem, what's Essjay's problem? It is this. He's an anonymous *&%$ with too much power, he got it too fast, and he's capable of abusing it. And nobody at Wikipedia really rides herd on him, as I find out from the pitiful note from Brad Patrick, obviously following Jimbo's lead. So. Here we are.
What do I WANT? I *don't* want Essay banned, as he tried to ban me. I believe in redemption. If he does good editorial work, fine. And if he's dishonest, that's his problem. Though personally, I really, really hate dishonesty and hypocrisy, as it can be the death of what I for a living in science. For Essjay and his presumably Roman Catholic God, maybe 10 Hail Marys and an Act of Contrition is enough.
But more than dishonesty, I hate the abuse of power, and the abuse of ways to attain it. If I caught one of my own employees with a lying CV and caught him abusing A VOLUNTEER by trying to lock him out (like the attempt to block me unilaterally and indefinitely, in Essjay's case), as the boss HERE in my fiefdom I'd make sure that first abusive administrator would be out the door so fast he'd have to be opening the locking bar with his butt, inasmuch as his arms would be full of his desk belongings he was holding with both arms, in the cardboard box he'd be carrying out, as I watched him go through the front building door on day #1. I make sure my employees don't abuse the staff, and I surely don't let them abuse newbies and volunteers. How Jimbo runs his business, is his problem. This is free advice, so take it for what it is worth.
What I WANT, therefore, is to see Essjay relieved of any power to block nameuser editors (vs. IPs and checkuser IP socks, which he's free to go wild with, for all I care). If you have a nameuser editor acting up, if he has good history, you have plenty of time for ArbCom. Thus, you don't need Essjay, and his bolts from the blue. (Nutshell: Nobody Expects The Spanish Inquisition, and Nobody Expects Essjay, either). Essjay's problem is that he just can't handle this with the delicacy he needs for it. IP vandals are one thing. Blocking a new username editor in violation of WP:AGF and certainly WP: DON'T BITE NEWBIES, let alone messing with WP policy on legal arcane-ia without consulting anybody, is quite another.
Now, I haven't gotten word one of apology from Essjay, nor from the people (Jimbo, Brian Patrick) who let him run roughshod on name-user editors. I don't expect one. Nor, in the circumstances, do I care if I get one now, since most of this is by now, in the nature of "sorry I got caught". But This note is to let you know I'm here. Until somebody manages to get me banned from Wikipedia permanently for speaking my mind, I'll be here, like the Recording Angel from Hell, every time Essay comes up. This was my worst experience on Wikipedia by far, and it is due solely to Essjay, and the people who are responsible for him, but don't watch him. And, yeah, almost a year later, I'm still really, really, REALLY angry about it. I don't get how people can engage in Wiki-stalking and other "meatspace" actions which happen for essentially cyberspace infractions. But after my interaction with Essjay, I suddenly, for the first time UNDERSTOOD it. If you've put a lot of work in, and you really haven't done anything to deserve that kind of treatment, you can see why people go off the deep end if you get removed from somebody's website. So my thanks for finally getting me to understand that. I'm a better editor for it.
And it's been worth my time to write, because I feel a lot better for giving my opinion on an admin who smelled bad to me, right from the very first electron of communication I got from him. If *this* letter has been too long (sorry!), my apologies for that. S B H arris 22:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
For good or for bad, he is gone. Getting sad or happy or even blaming others is not necessary. He is no more. You have had bad experiences? Well, it is up to you: forget and continue your life, stay clouded by "what ifs", stalk him. I don't care. Do you think you are the only one who has had a bad experience in Wikipedia? This is an optional place. If it hurts you so much, maybe you should take a break. -- ReyBrujo 18:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Please help at User talk:Jimbo Wales. I've added some ideas there. Your input would be appreciated. WAS 4.250 21:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Sbharris: I want to avoid a revert of my revert in E=mc². Putting this message here on your talk page allows you to delete this message at your convenience. The Boltzmann constant simply relates temperature to kinetic energy. Nothing more. It has nothing whatsover to do with specific heat capacity or moles. The related formula (Emean = 3/2KbT) merely specifies how, for a bulk quantity of a substance, to apply the the constant to find the mean kinetic energy added by an increase in temperature. Technically, that formula is used to find the total kinetic energy in a substance given only its temperature in kelvins. However, it works fine to find an incremental increase in kinetic energy given a incremental increase in temperature. Greg L 05:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, delete this incredibly bad sentence, which can't be fixed at all, as is, study your physics, and return wiser.
The bad sentence:
Raising the temperature of an object by 100 °C increases its mass by 2.3043 × 10–36 g. [1]
S
B
H
arris
05:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi am from Germany and after the Essjay skandal i had a closer look on the english wikipedia and read your postings. The differnces are quite fascinating. The german wikipeda, the second bigest wikipedia in size, is ruled by experts. To proof my point have a look on homeopathy http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hom%C3%B6opathie#Kritik_an_der_Hom.C3.B6opathie in the german wikipedia chapter 5 is named Criticism 5.1 no proof of efficacy 5.2 no plausible mechanism 5.3 internal contradictions 5.4 dangers 5.5 miscellaneous criticism. This chapter has a very strong scientific POV and there is just one lousy weblink is in it as reference. If someone comes around in the discussion page and says: "hey this is POV!" the physicans will say: "So what?" and if he writes "There are no refernces in the critism chapter so i doubt it is correct." The physicans will say: "Well i am Physican i know that this is right, so you have to prove ME that it is not correct.". Also there is no need for consenses, the german wikipedia doesn't have that rule and in the AfD it is not a vote but an exchange of arguments and even if a majority like 70% says keep, the admin will delete the article if he is the arguments for deletion are stronger in his opinion. I wonder if germans tend to authoric systems more so that there wiki is authoric too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.133.146.6 ( talk) 01:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
i see that youre a licensed physician. maybe you can help us proofread the subject article. any change in context is highly appreciated. happy wikiying †Bloodpack† 20:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Anytime energy is added to a system, the system gains mass. For instance, lifting a one-kilogram mass upwards one meter against the force of one standard gravity increases its mass by 109.114 femtograms (1 fg = 1 × 10–15 g). [2]
Hi, I noticed you did a lot of work on the Wyatt Earp entry. I seems to have been vandalized a lot recently. I am not very knowledgeable on the subject and can not make heads or tails of it. I would revert, but feel I could make it worse than what it already is. Thank-you, an annon user that doesn't want to screw things up. 24.158.102.32 18:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If you'd like my admin status removed, you are welcome to open a Request for Comment, or a Request for Arbitration. Let me know if you need any assistance. As usual, I'll be busy editing productively, but I'd be happy to give you support. Cheers! alphachimp 13:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I think alphachimp needs chilling out too. Please let me know if you do open an RFC on him because I also think he needs desysopping , as does any admin who indefinitely blocks an account for an isolated edit without warning or discussion. I don't know why he thinks his logs will be illuminating: do they show him often doing this kind of thing, and he's proud of it? Grace Note 00:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I am really interested to hear all of your complaints/concerns about me. Why not just come over to my talk page and present me with an enumerated list? If you don't prefer that venue, I might just open up an RfC myself. There's no point in brooding over it. Let's get this out into the open. And no, that's not sarcasm. alphachimp 04:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Im not entirely sure what you meant by your comment in Gold. What does the staff have something for me to do? Im lost! James Random
Having previously discussed admin actions with you (Essjay, and now I see you involved in similar with alphachimp) that are perhaps less positive than I personally would like admin actions to be, I thought I'd bring this idea to you to see what you think.
Idea: Formation of a user-only (non-admin) committee-of-sorts to monitor admin actions and recommend changes to both the ways that admins who make aggregious errors are dealt with, and to the path users can take in dispute resolutions that involve admins.
Basically, 'WPAdminWatch' (I dislike that name, but will use it for the purpose of discussion), would have two mandates:
Of course, me saying this, I expect some admins won't be at all happy with the concept and will fight it every step of the way. However, if done correctly and not with a hate-on for admins, this could be very constructive and well within the spirit of community in WP.
Your thoughts? -- Kickstart70- T- C 19:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'm off for a week to scuba with sea turtles in Hawaii, and if when I return I'm not unwound enough (and that should do it if anything could) then I'll start this process off myself, if somebody else hasn't done it before me. Meanwhile, don't mistake my silence for lack of interest. And feel free to start things yourself. S B H arris 04:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)