Archive #7 All messages from Dec 27, 2008 though the end of June 2009.
Hello! My name is Gopal81 and I would like to nominate you for adminship. According to your edit history, it seems you are already not an admin. Oh, and before I forget:
If, however, you wish to just be an editor, you can leave me a message! Gopal81 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 01:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
And then, there's the culture that has produced this [1]. Which of course is the comments on this [2] this, which finally degenerated to this: [3] "A concerning RfC" in ANI archive 180. Which needs to be enshrined in WP:LAME. Pure abusive by a power-elite who cannot stand being criticized even mildly, as a group. And you want me to join this club? I have too much self-respect.
Let me get back to the work, please, working to improve the quality of articles which will later be scrapped by other sites, and are thus independent of the largely rotten culture of the organization which makes them possible (but does not do the actual work). Meanwhile, the WMF CEO Sue Gardner can continue to vet new board-of-trustees members of the Foudation, which means she picks her own bosses, and thus has no real accountability. Sweet. But you can have it. S B H arris 11:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to bother you, but help!!! I know you're good at physics, could you look at my edit here: [4], the source can be viewed in google books: [5].
It's being multiply reverted, including removing the references to a reliable source, and I need somebody who understands physics to say yes or no that what I wrote is backed up by that source. There's a whole mess on the talk page about it as well, but you should know from the edit one way or another.- ( User) Wolfkeeper ( Talk) 07:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I also quoted an email from Henry Spencer on the talk page, that says that same thing I think.- ( User) Wolfkeeper ( Talk) 07:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
For fighting the dark forces of dubious opinions unconnected to reliable sources.- ( User) Wolfkeeper ( Talk) 16:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC) |
Before you go and accuse me of being "clueless," the idiot's first couple of edits were garden-variety vandalism, not the typical "HAGGER" and "HERMIE" garbage. I did go back later to see what the guy had been up to, saw the page moves, went to block the account along with the talk page and discovered he'd already been blocked. That kind of asinine behavior on the part of those snot-nosed little brats is what prompted me to ask for my admin tools back, so please don't jump down my throat. I once got a death threat from one of the little bastards, so believe me when I tell you that Grawp is at the top of my list. I do a lot of patrolling for the Grawp wannabes and I shut them down on sight, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. We're supposed to be on the same team, here. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 15:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Some of the references *i think* you left on Fiat_currency are broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campoftheamericas ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not a purist, and I completely agree that the article on irony should reflect modern usage. However, I don't think your revision accurately captured the modern usage, while another section of the article already covers it. You said something along the lines of "irony is used to mean sharp, unexpected turn of events." But I do not believe the word is commonly used this way. On the other hand, there is another section of the article that says situational irony can be defined as "coincidence, when enlivened by 'perverse appropriateness." When people refer to something that is "merely coincidental" as irony, there is almost universally an element that someone considers to be perversely appropriate. The number of people using it when something is only a coincidence without this added dimension is small enough, I believe, that we can regard them as being in error, and that use is not indicative of a common usage.
-- Dr.queso ( talk) 01:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll follow the discussion, but haven't really formed an opinion yet. Cheers Spitfire Tally-ho! 05:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Not sure why you think I am involved. I don't have any strong views one way or the other on this matter, and don't have anything to contribute to the discussion. Ehrenkater ( talk) 17:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I do know about Grawp. I am totally willing to block him ASAP and as permanently as is possible. As we know, IP permanent blocks are not really approved of; is there any way of being sure that the author of these attacks, which always come in the same form, are not from dynamic IPs? Always willing to learn; seriously. -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 20:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw your edits on cyanide. Fine. My continuing issue is that Wikipedia editors recognize that Wikipedia not become an account of "how things are in the U.S."-- Smokefoot ( talk) 13:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Steven: Apparently User:Likebox insists on writing Mass–energy equivalence to suit themselves, and repeatedly deletes cited material. They already have a reputation for such activity. How can it be prevented or ameliorated? Brews ohare ( talk) 04:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I will slow down.. And see if I can find some references for some of the unreference stuff..
I'm sure I haven't actually removed any content - I did remove some stuff that was repeated in the "Applications" sections since is was duplicated.
Bits I did remove include
As for beryllium, at least one review (American Ceramic Society Bulletin,Vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 1034. 1989) states flatly [7] "Berylliosis is a disease of delayed immunological response, i.e. only people allergic to beryllium contract the disease. About 1% of people are allergic." Beryllium dermatitis is certainly allergic [8], and the lessions in other parts of the body are cell-mediated immune complexes with typical granumolas for allergic reactions. In fact, chronic berylliosis in man can be diagnosed via a skin allergy patch test called the Curtis test,and there is also a beryllium lymphocyte proliferation assay in which the victim's lymphocytes are tested to be sensitive to proliferation to beryllium as an antigen, in the same way as is done for any allergen. "Chronic beryllium disease (CBD) provides a model for study of the Ag [antigen]- stimulated, cell-mediated immune response that, over time, progresses to granulomatous lung disease." [9] The entire toxicity mechanism of Be hasn't been nailed down (is it for anything?), but I don't believe the beryllium article LEAD said that it had been: it merely said: "The toxicity of beryllium and its salts varies greatly from person to person, and has elements of its pathology that suggest an allergic-type component to the body's reaction to it." That's certainly fair, and if you google-schoolar "berylliosis allergic" you'll more than enough support if you need more. But you can't add the citations if the statement has been removed. That's what citation needed tags are for. You're supposed to remove stuff only if it's plainly crazy and/or you can't find any evidence in a cursory search, not simply because you don't believe it or hadn't heard of it. How much scholarship did you do on the matter? S B H arris 03:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
No, as I said above, the mechanistic studies, nature of the granulomas, animal model studies, etc., http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12464&page=165 all give a far stronger inductive picture for causation than mere post hoc correlation. Although as Hume pointed out long ago, we really have no other way to establish causation for anything other than various types of correlation, so if you're going to be the ultimate Humean skeptic, I cannot inductively prove any causal relationship to you whatever, still less one which is less than 100% and which cannot be experimentally proven in a human trial which would involve an ethically unacceptable challenge with inhaled beryllium. Nor can I prove to you for the same reason that smoking causes lung cancer or heart disease, or that HIV causes AIDS. All these have their skeptics. Nor that drinking causes fatal auto accidents. But I've been down the skeptic road with too many people to waste my time on somebody who resorts to this defense and won't post counter-references. I'll simply put this up on the beryllium TALK page and let others comment.
Obviously boron compounds where EVERY B has a formal negative charge (the superconductor MgB2 and the various BN compounds) are not electron deficient, but rather every B has a filled octet. However, contrary to your assertion I know of no B minerals in this category, and I've looked (name one-- I can't prove a negative). As for other B compounds not found in nature: boron halides at normal temp are sp2 trigonal and electron deficient-- they have vacant ENOUGH p's to be classic adduct formers. Some kind of dimerization of the halides may happen at low cryogenic temps, but why are we even discussing such stuff? "Even in BF3 the p orbitals are definately not empty." Who says? Citation needed. It's a trigonal compound, and classic adduct former.
Finally, you can't generalize about the boranes: "...the electron deficiency is found in high energy boron compounds such as boranes." High energy?? All chemical bonds require energy to break. The boranes are compounds in which can have sp3 hybrids yet no octet, due to the 3-center-2-electron bonds. Some have half-filled p's and others have atoms with empty p's. B2H4 has two "half vacant" p's, but is sp3, and in B4H10 all four B's are the same way. However in B5H9 and higher hydrides some of the B's are sp2 and trigonal so they have fully empty p orbitals.
To sum up, I would say that electron replete negatively-charged boron is the rarity, and is not found in nature. It occurs most notably in man-made boron graphite structure polymers. All natural boron compounds (including all oxides) have some empty p's, are acidic, and form adducts with alcohols and hydroxides. As do boron halides. The higher boranes (B5 and higher) also have some empty p's.
Finally, as to the citations, once again, since this not biography, the proper way to handle it is with citation needed tags if you don't believe it, not removal. I've supplied most of the citation here, and all I have from you is disbelief and no research and no cites of your own. I take it you have degrees in medicine and chemistry, have seen a case of berylliosis, have handled elemental B, Be, Li and their compounds and adducts in the lab, and so forth? How did you manage the 20 K to give you dimeric (BF3)2? Liquid helium? S B H arris 12:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Steven, I'm seeking your advice on how to behave on wikipedia regarding edit wars. I haven't had problems with that until recently (just wrote to a person and easily reached consensus). I'm trying to be polite and careful and will ask a hypothetical question. What if someone does not care about his reputation and starts attacking you personally, with no limits, saying, e.g., that you rewrite his edits because you are bad and wrong, etc.. How would you react. I see my question is yet unshaped and will give possible answers:
Editing wikipedia raises many psychological problems, and I guess there could be a sort of "help desk" for that. Sorry for asking you. Best regards. NIMSoffice ( talk) 00:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I may be the wrong person to ask about this, since I am of the long opinion that Wikipedia is fundamentally flawed as long as the participants are anonymous and there is no way to compensate for academic authority or for gaming of the system by ballot box stuffing (very clever socks) and for the advances that accrue to fanatics who simply have more time to waste. Thus, I've simply left a lot of articles to dogs myself. There's always www.mywikibiz.com for when you can't stand it any more, and want your own article to say what you want it to say, with no nuts allowed. S B H arris 00:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I contend that the one is Las Vegas is the primary use. If you wish to move it, it probably needs to be discussed on WP:RM. In the meantime, don't violate the GFDL by cut and paste moves. Also I might have understood what you were trying to do earlier if your edit comments explained your actions. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Sb, my sense is that the lead was getting close to a reasonable lead, even with the one-word parenthetical note about praxis. It seems to me the more specific discussion about the uses of the word "art" (technical or practical art as opposed to creative or fine art) almost certainly ought be in the "Etymology and usage" section, if anywhere. The existing section on usage is presently too lengthy IMO, and ought be made more concise and less like part of a paper somebody wrote, but there certainly is room there for the clarification about "art". IOW, while a proper observation, I think it's a bit too much of a contextual explanation for the opening paragraph. ... Kenosis ( talk) 12:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Steven:
It may be the moment for you to take another look at Matter. Please comment. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my
"RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (
Ceoil,
Noroton and
Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read
Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. ~~~~~ |
![]() |
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Gamma boron discovery controversy. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamma boron discovery controversy. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 21:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:SteinbeckStamp.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
ww2censor (
talk)
04:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:SteinbeckStamp.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ww2censor ( talk) 04:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Steve, I can now see that you are genuinely trying to understand this controversy. Your recent intervention began with you teaching me about the rotating frame transformation equations as they appear in the textbooks. I was already totally familiar with this topic as it appears in the textbooks, with its radial Coriolis force, and I have explained on a number of occasions where I think that it is totally wrong. If you do agree with this approach to centrifugal force, then we will have to agree to disagree. The argument on the talk page is no longer about that specific issue. Rotating frames transformations/fictitious forces is prolific in the textbooks, and under wikipedia rules it has to go into the article as such. I am not interferring with that. I am leaving that for those that are interested in writing about that topic.
The edit war now is over the issue of whether or not the literature advocates a third way. The literature does indeed advocate that centrifugal force is an inertial force that becomes exposed when Newton's laws are expressed in polar coordinates. [10] In my opinion, this is the only universally correct way to approach the topic, and the edit war is because FyzixFighter and dicklyon want to suppress all references to this approach.
Dicklyon's strategy is to say that the third way is only a special case of the rotating frames approach as applied to co-rotation situations. The problem with that argument is that when we deal with rotating frames of reference, we are only doing so because we are focused on the apparent deflections that accour with non-co-rotation. So if we want to focus on co-rotation, why bother with rotating reference frames at all? And when the polar coordinates approach is adopted, rotating frames don't enter into it. The centrifugal force is an inertial force in the inertial frame.
The point is that the maths that is used for rotating frame transformations actually only applies to co-rotating situations. It doesn't apply to the apparent deflections that it is supposed to be applying to. There has been a huge cock up in modern applied maths over this issue. The apparent deflections are not accurately descsribed by the inertial force expressions. Indeed all that a rotating frame does is to superimpose an apparent circular motion on top of the inertial path.
So the edit war at the moment focuses on the introduction. FyzixFighter is insisting that we categorically declare that there are only two approaches to this topic. He is trying to suppress the third way even though references have been presented. It is a corrupt bureaucratic tactic. By having some modern reference in which some misinformed author has stated his belief that there are two approaches to centrifugal force, FyzixFighter is playing the wikipedia rules such as to disallow any references to a third approach. He is giving a primacy to these references as if they are divine wisdom, and he is getting away with it because he has fooled the adminsitrators into thinking that he is trying to improve the article. In actual fact, the evidence is clear that FyzixFighter only edits on physics articles that I edit on, and that his only purpose is to undermine what I am trying to do. David Tombe ( talk) 13:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The fictitious forces are not the same as the inertial forces. The two have got confused in the literature. The inertial forces are built into the inertial path. Fictitious forces are apparent deflections in an accelerated frame of reference. You need to learn about polar coordinates and then its appliaction to the Kepler problem. That deals with centrifugal force in a concise way without any involvement of rotating frames of reference. David Tombe ( talk) 18:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Steve, the d(theta)/dt ≠ 0 is relative to the inertial frame. There is no rotating frame of reference involved. Just because we have rotation it doesn't mean that we have a rotating frame of reference. David Tombe ( talk) 19:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Steve, I've quantified this discussion on the talk page of centrifugal force under the title 'The General Polar Coordinate Equation and the Four Inertial Forces'. I'd welcome your opinions there as to what the four terms mean. David Tombe ( talk) 23:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
ww2censor ( talk) 17:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I moved List of links for information relating to Graves' disease to User:Sbharris/sandbox in accordance with my shoot-first-ask-questions-later policy. I now see that it is stuff hived off the parent article and that it had been discussed. But even so, I suggest you seek support at talk:Graves' disease before moving it back. Why not put it on your website? Or downgrade it to a sub-page of talk:Graves' disease? — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 23:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of links for information relating to Graves' disease, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Ridernyc ( talk) 02:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
IMO, unless the isotope is particularly notable (C-12, C-14, H-2, and so on), it would be better to expand the isotope of element article (in this case, Isotopes of beryllium) and create a section within that article (such as Isotopes of beryllium#Beryllium-8). Then if the section grows particularly unwield, then it would be expanded into its own article. Your opinion? Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:SteinbeckStamp.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia: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. Thank you. ww2censor ( talk) 14:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I have been dabbling on the United States Notes page and was wondering if you had any information on who the American economist S.G. Fisher was?-- LondonYoung ( talk) 09:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I was interested to read your commentary on consensus at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not. I haven't got quite as jaded as you, but I haven't been around as long. My present view is that often it happens that a few editors get wound up on a topic and just pass beyond the point of listening, continually rephrase exactly the same arguments, and ignore any attempt at persuasion, be it logic, citations or rhetoric. If the topic is left alone for a while amazingly these editors lose all interest, and may not even make changes in the article: they just like debate. It's just modern life, people like drama more than results. Brews ohare ( talk) 21:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi SBHarris.
Thanks, yeah this page is definitely making progress and its always nice when wikipedia articles can approach a comparable standard to the peer-reviewed literature. Lots more stuff to say but relevant research is unfortunately somewhat lacking as the pharmaceutical industry has now pretty much dropped anything with even a hint of 5-HT2B agonist effects and ceased most research in the area....I guess if they expect to be sued by former patients then it seems sensible to avoid doing research that might help the opposition's case!
This lack of incentive to do further research is a problem though as some crucial issues remain unanswered, particularly as relates to the dose-response relationship and other risk factors. One point our article doesn't make clear that perhaps it should, is that 5-HT2B agonists merely increase the risk of developing cardiac valvopathies, and even in patients prescribed high doses for long periods of time of the worst offending drugs like fenfluramine or pergolide, the majority of patients did not develop clinically relevant valvopathies, even though the risk of developing the heart problem was undoubtedly far higher than in the general population. So there is clearly more to it than just 5-HT2B agonism, I'd speculate genetic factors will also be very important as this would explain why some patients develop the valvopathies even with only relatively limited exposure, while others can take fenfluramine for years with no apparent heart damage at all.
Also its all very well for the FDA to recommend that patients be switched to alternative drugs that don't act at 5-HT2B, but this only works where suitable alternatives are available. With recreational drugs like MDMA the risk of long-term cardiotoxicity is clearly not going to stop people from using the drug seeing as neurotoxicity and legal sanctions have so far failed to do so. Since treatment with a 5-HT2B antagonist blocks both the serotonin release and behavioural effects of MDMA it seems likely that central 5-HT2B activation may be required for producing the effects of "empathogens", and therefore it is doubtful whether other empathogens which are not 5-HT2B agonists could even be developed. This means that it is very important to determine things like what level of exposure is required to initiate abnormal heart valve tissue growth, and what other factors are responsible for the pronounced variability in individual response. Perhaps a peripherally selective 5-HT2B antagonist may prove to be the best prophylaxis in these cases, and drugs of this class are currently being developed for treatment of heart disease, so it will be interesting to see how well they do in clinical trials. Meodipt ( talk) 02:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I hear ya on the suckiness of getting images deleted - I've lost a bunch myself. I blame the movie buffs; when we were slack about fair use, they were uploading enough stills and segments to reproduce the entire movie... 1/2 :-) Years ago I did a bunch of cleanup in the general fair use image category, it was just amazing what people were trying to pass off as legitimate uses. So we end up with a byzantine system of criteria because common sense wasn't doing the job. These days I rarely bother with non-free images, they're not worth running the gauntlet (plus I have a 2-year backlog of my own photos to upload!) The cropping of the Steinbeck picture to filter out the cigarette could actually be spun into a good rationale, odds that there is an interview or article somewhere where the stamp designer comments on that. Stan ( talk) 12:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I sympathize. Unfortunately, the page is a bit of a mess--- it would require extensive rewriting. I don't know if I have time to do it.
The main issue is that there is a totally useless (but theoretically concievable) definition of binding energy tacked on there, which is the energy required to split a nucleus into electrons, neutrinos, and protons (zero mass neutrinos). To fight this nonstandard not so useful definition, you need to rewrite the whole thing more clearly, so that it isn't as long. If you have some particular paragraph you want removed, tell me, I'll do it. Likebox ( talk) 00:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Steven: I've stashed some material I wanted to add to Wavelength at User:Brews ohare/Wavelength. This stuff has been repeatedly deleted by Srleffler in collaboration with Dicklyon, who make little attempt to suggest remedies, but love to tell me I am nuts. They deliberately removed from the article the stuff on General waveforms for which I made a RfC, without allowing time for anybody to respond. I thought that a bit high-handed. Perhaps you could offer a sanity check on this? Regards: Brews ohare ( talk) 14:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Archive #7 All messages from Dec 27, 2008 though the end of June 2009.
Hello! My name is Gopal81 and I would like to nominate you for adminship. According to your edit history, it seems you are already not an admin. Oh, and before I forget:
If, however, you wish to just be an editor, you can leave me a message! Gopal81 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 01:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
And then, there's the culture that has produced this [1]. Which of course is the comments on this [2] this, which finally degenerated to this: [3] "A concerning RfC" in ANI archive 180. Which needs to be enshrined in WP:LAME. Pure abusive by a power-elite who cannot stand being criticized even mildly, as a group. And you want me to join this club? I have too much self-respect.
Let me get back to the work, please, working to improve the quality of articles which will later be scrapped by other sites, and are thus independent of the largely rotten culture of the organization which makes them possible (but does not do the actual work). Meanwhile, the WMF CEO Sue Gardner can continue to vet new board-of-trustees members of the Foudation, which means she picks her own bosses, and thus has no real accountability. Sweet. But you can have it. S B H arris 11:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to bother you, but help!!! I know you're good at physics, could you look at my edit here: [4], the source can be viewed in google books: [5].
It's being multiply reverted, including removing the references to a reliable source, and I need somebody who understands physics to say yes or no that what I wrote is backed up by that source. There's a whole mess on the talk page about it as well, but you should know from the edit one way or another.- ( User) Wolfkeeper ( Talk) 07:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I also quoted an email from Henry Spencer on the talk page, that says that same thing I think.- ( User) Wolfkeeper ( Talk) 07:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
For fighting the dark forces of dubious opinions unconnected to reliable sources.- ( User) Wolfkeeper ( Talk) 16:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC) |
Before you go and accuse me of being "clueless," the idiot's first couple of edits were garden-variety vandalism, not the typical "HAGGER" and "HERMIE" garbage. I did go back later to see what the guy had been up to, saw the page moves, went to block the account along with the talk page and discovered he'd already been blocked. That kind of asinine behavior on the part of those snot-nosed little brats is what prompted me to ask for my admin tools back, so please don't jump down my throat. I once got a death threat from one of the little bastards, so believe me when I tell you that Grawp is at the top of my list. I do a lot of patrolling for the Grawp wannabes and I shut them down on sight, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. We're supposed to be on the same team, here. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 15:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Some of the references *i think* you left on Fiat_currency are broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campoftheamericas ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not a purist, and I completely agree that the article on irony should reflect modern usage. However, I don't think your revision accurately captured the modern usage, while another section of the article already covers it. You said something along the lines of "irony is used to mean sharp, unexpected turn of events." But I do not believe the word is commonly used this way. On the other hand, there is another section of the article that says situational irony can be defined as "coincidence, when enlivened by 'perverse appropriateness." When people refer to something that is "merely coincidental" as irony, there is almost universally an element that someone considers to be perversely appropriate. The number of people using it when something is only a coincidence without this added dimension is small enough, I believe, that we can regard them as being in error, and that use is not indicative of a common usage.
-- Dr.queso ( talk) 01:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll follow the discussion, but haven't really formed an opinion yet. Cheers Spitfire Tally-ho! 05:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Not sure why you think I am involved. I don't have any strong views one way or the other on this matter, and don't have anything to contribute to the discussion. Ehrenkater ( talk) 17:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I do know about Grawp. I am totally willing to block him ASAP and as permanently as is possible. As we know, IP permanent blocks are not really approved of; is there any way of being sure that the author of these attacks, which always come in the same form, are not from dynamic IPs? Always willing to learn; seriously. -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 20:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw your edits on cyanide. Fine. My continuing issue is that Wikipedia editors recognize that Wikipedia not become an account of "how things are in the U.S."-- Smokefoot ( talk) 13:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Steven: Apparently User:Likebox insists on writing Mass–energy equivalence to suit themselves, and repeatedly deletes cited material. They already have a reputation for such activity. How can it be prevented or ameliorated? Brews ohare ( talk) 04:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I will slow down.. And see if I can find some references for some of the unreference stuff..
I'm sure I haven't actually removed any content - I did remove some stuff that was repeated in the "Applications" sections since is was duplicated.
Bits I did remove include
As for beryllium, at least one review (American Ceramic Society Bulletin,Vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 1034. 1989) states flatly [7] "Berylliosis is a disease of delayed immunological response, i.e. only people allergic to beryllium contract the disease. About 1% of people are allergic." Beryllium dermatitis is certainly allergic [8], and the lessions in other parts of the body are cell-mediated immune complexes with typical granumolas for allergic reactions. In fact, chronic berylliosis in man can be diagnosed via a skin allergy patch test called the Curtis test,and there is also a beryllium lymphocyte proliferation assay in which the victim's lymphocytes are tested to be sensitive to proliferation to beryllium as an antigen, in the same way as is done for any allergen. "Chronic beryllium disease (CBD) provides a model for study of the Ag [antigen]- stimulated, cell-mediated immune response that, over time, progresses to granulomatous lung disease." [9] The entire toxicity mechanism of Be hasn't been nailed down (is it for anything?), but I don't believe the beryllium article LEAD said that it had been: it merely said: "The toxicity of beryllium and its salts varies greatly from person to person, and has elements of its pathology that suggest an allergic-type component to the body's reaction to it." That's certainly fair, and if you google-schoolar "berylliosis allergic" you'll more than enough support if you need more. But you can't add the citations if the statement has been removed. That's what citation needed tags are for. You're supposed to remove stuff only if it's plainly crazy and/or you can't find any evidence in a cursory search, not simply because you don't believe it or hadn't heard of it. How much scholarship did you do on the matter? S B H arris 03:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
No, as I said above, the mechanistic studies, nature of the granulomas, animal model studies, etc., http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12464&page=165 all give a far stronger inductive picture for causation than mere post hoc correlation. Although as Hume pointed out long ago, we really have no other way to establish causation for anything other than various types of correlation, so if you're going to be the ultimate Humean skeptic, I cannot inductively prove any causal relationship to you whatever, still less one which is less than 100% and which cannot be experimentally proven in a human trial which would involve an ethically unacceptable challenge with inhaled beryllium. Nor can I prove to you for the same reason that smoking causes lung cancer or heart disease, or that HIV causes AIDS. All these have their skeptics. Nor that drinking causes fatal auto accidents. But I've been down the skeptic road with too many people to waste my time on somebody who resorts to this defense and won't post counter-references. I'll simply put this up on the beryllium TALK page and let others comment.
Obviously boron compounds where EVERY B has a formal negative charge (the superconductor MgB2 and the various BN compounds) are not electron deficient, but rather every B has a filled octet. However, contrary to your assertion I know of no B minerals in this category, and I've looked (name one-- I can't prove a negative). As for other B compounds not found in nature: boron halides at normal temp are sp2 trigonal and electron deficient-- they have vacant ENOUGH p's to be classic adduct formers. Some kind of dimerization of the halides may happen at low cryogenic temps, but why are we even discussing such stuff? "Even in BF3 the p orbitals are definately not empty." Who says? Citation needed. It's a trigonal compound, and classic adduct former.
Finally, you can't generalize about the boranes: "...the electron deficiency is found in high energy boron compounds such as boranes." High energy?? All chemical bonds require energy to break. The boranes are compounds in which can have sp3 hybrids yet no octet, due to the 3-center-2-electron bonds. Some have half-filled p's and others have atoms with empty p's. B2H4 has two "half vacant" p's, but is sp3, and in B4H10 all four B's are the same way. However in B5H9 and higher hydrides some of the B's are sp2 and trigonal so they have fully empty p orbitals.
To sum up, I would say that electron replete negatively-charged boron is the rarity, and is not found in nature. It occurs most notably in man-made boron graphite structure polymers. All natural boron compounds (including all oxides) have some empty p's, are acidic, and form adducts with alcohols and hydroxides. As do boron halides. The higher boranes (B5 and higher) also have some empty p's.
Finally, as to the citations, once again, since this not biography, the proper way to handle it is with citation needed tags if you don't believe it, not removal. I've supplied most of the citation here, and all I have from you is disbelief and no research and no cites of your own. I take it you have degrees in medicine and chemistry, have seen a case of berylliosis, have handled elemental B, Be, Li and their compounds and adducts in the lab, and so forth? How did you manage the 20 K to give you dimeric (BF3)2? Liquid helium? S B H arris 12:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Steven, I'm seeking your advice on how to behave on wikipedia regarding edit wars. I haven't had problems with that until recently (just wrote to a person and easily reached consensus). I'm trying to be polite and careful and will ask a hypothetical question. What if someone does not care about his reputation and starts attacking you personally, with no limits, saying, e.g., that you rewrite his edits because you are bad and wrong, etc.. How would you react. I see my question is yet unshaped and will give possible answers:
Editing wikipedia raises many psychological problems, and I guess there could be a sort of "help desk" for that. Sorry for asking you. Best regards. NIMSoffice ( talk) 00:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I may be the wrong person to ask about this, since I am of the long opinion that Wikipedia is fundamentally flawed as long as the participants are anonymous and there is no way to compensate for academic authority or for gaming of the system by ballot box stuffing (very clever socks) and for the advances that accrue to fanatics who simply have more time to waste. Thus, I've simply left a lot of articles to dogs myself. There's always www.mywikibiz.com for when you can't stand it any more, and want your own article to say what you want it to say, with no nuts allowed. S B H arris 00:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I contend that the one is Las Vegas is the primary use. If you wish to move it, it probably needs to be discussed on WP:RM. In the meantime, don't violate the GFDL by cut and paste moves. Also I might have understood what you were trying to do earlier if your edit comments explained your actions. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Sb, my sense is that the lead was getting close to a reasonable lead, even with the one-word parenthetical note about praxis. It seems to me the more specific discussion about the uses of the word "art" (technical or practical art as opposed to creative or fine art) almost certainly ought be in the "Etymology and usage" section, if anywhere. The existing section on usage is presently too lengthy IMO, and ought be made more concise and less like part of a paper somebody wrote, but there certainly is room there for the clarification about "art". IOW, while a proper observation, I think it's a bit too much of a contextual explanation for the opening paragraph. ... Kenosis ( talk) 12:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Steven:
It may be the moment for you to take another look at Matter. Please comment. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my
"RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (
Ceoil,
Noroton and
Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read
Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. ~~~~~ |
![]() |
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Gamma boron discovery controversy. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamma boron discovery controversy. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 21:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:SteinbeckStamp.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
ww2censor (
talk)
04:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:SteinbeckStamp.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ww2censor ( talk) 04:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Steve, I can now see that you are genuinely trying to understand this controversy. Your recent intervention began with you teaching me about the rotating frame transformation equations as they appear in the textbooks. I was already totally familiar with this topic as it appears in the textbooks, with its radial Coriolis force, and I have explained on a number of occasions where I think that it is totally wrong. If you do agree with this approach to centrifugal force, then we will have to agree to disagree. The argument on the talk page is no longer about that specific issue. Rotating frames transformations/fictitious forces is prolific in the textbooks, and under wikipedia rules it has to go into the article as such. I am not interferring with that. I am leaving that for those that are interested in writing about that topic.
The edit war now is over the issue of whether or not the literature advocates a third way. The literature does indeed advocate that centrifugal force is an inertial force that becomes exposed when Newton's laws are expressed in polar coordinates. [10] In my opinion, this is the only universally correct way to approach the topic, and the edit war is because FyzixFighter and dicklyon want to suppress all references to this approach.
Dicklyon's strategy is to say that the third way is only a special case of the rotating frames approach as applied to co-rotation situations. The problem with that argument is that when we deal with rotating frames of reference, we are only doing so because we are focused on the apparent deflections that accour with non-co-rotation. So if we want to focus on co-rotation, why bother with rotating reference frames at all? And when the polar coordinates approach is adopted, rotating frames don't enter into it. The centrifugal force is an inertial force in the inertial frame.
The point is that the maths that is used for rotating frame transformations actually only applies to co-rotating situations. It doesn't apply to the apparent deflections that it is supposed to be applying to. There has been a huge cock up in modern applied maths over this issue. The apparent deflections are not accurately descsribed by the inertial force expressions. Indeed all that a rotating frame does is to superimpose an apparent circular motion on top of the inertial path.
So the edit war at the moment focuses on the introduction. FyzixFighter is insisting that we categorically declare that there are only two approaches to this topic. He is trying to suppress the third way even though references have been presented. It is a corrupt bureaucratic tactic. By having some modern reference in which some misinformed author has stated his belief that there are two approaches to centrifugal force, FyzixFighter is playing the wikipedia rules such as to disallow any references to a third approach. He is giving a primacy to these references as if they are divine wisdom, and he is getting away with it because he has fooled the adminsitrators into thinking that he is trying to improve the article. In actual fact, the evidence is clear that FyzixFighter only edits on physics articles that I edit on, and that his only purpose is to undermine what I am trying to do. David Tombe ( talk) 13:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The fictitious forces are not the same as the inertial forces. The two have got confused in the literature. The inertial forces are built into the inertial path. Fictitious forces are apparent deflections in an accelerated frame of reference. You need to learn about polar coordinates and then its appliaction to the Kepler problem. That deals with centrifugal force in a concise way without any involvement of rotating frames of reference. David Tombe ( talk) 18:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Steve, the d(theta)/dt ≠ 0 is relative to the inertial frame. There is no rotating frame of reference involved. Just because we have rotation it doesn't mean that we have a rotating frame of reference. David Tombe ( talk) 19:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Steve, I've quantified this discussion on the talk page of centrifugal force under the title 'The General Polar Coordinate Equation and the Four Inertial Forces'. I'd welcome your opinions there as to what the four terms mean. David Tombe ( talk) 23:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
ww2censor ( talk) 17:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I moved List of links for information relating to Graves' disease to User:Sbharris/sandbox in accordance with my shoot-first-ask-questions-later policy. I now see that it is stuff hived off the parent article and that it had been discussed. But even so, I suggest you seek support at talk:Graves' disease before moving it back. Why not put it on your website? Or downgrade it to a sub-page of talk:Graves' disease? — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 23:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of links for information relating to Graves' disease, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Ridernyc ( talk) 02:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
IMO, unless the isotope is particularly notable (C-12, C-14, H-2, and so on), it would be better to expand the isotope of element article (in this case, Isotopes of beryllium) and create a section within that article (such as Isotopes of beryllium#Beryllium-8). Then if the section grows particularly unwield, then it would be expanded into its own article. Your opinion? Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:SteinbeckStamp.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia: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. Thank you. ww2censor ( talk) 14:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I have been dabbling on the United States Notes page and was wondering if you had any information on who the American economist S.G. Fisher was?-- LondonYoung ( talk) 09:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I was interested to read your commentary on consensus at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not. I haven't got quite as jaded as you, but I haven't been around as long. My present view is that often it happens that a few editors get wound up on a topic and just pass beyond the point of listening, continually rephrase exactly the same arguments, and ignore any attempt at persuasion, be it logic, citations or rhetoric. If the topic is left alone for a while amazingly these editors lose all interest, and may not even make changes in the article: they just like debate. It's just modern life, people like drama more than results. Brews ohare ( talk) 21:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi SBHarris.
Thanks, yeah this page is definitely making progress and its always nice when wikipedia articles can approach a comparable standard to the peer-reviewed literature. Lots more stuff to say but relevant research is unfortunately somewhat lacking as the pharmaceutical industry has now pretty much dropped anything with even a hint of 5-HT2B agonist effects and ceased most research in the area....I guess if they expect to be sued by former patients then it seems sensible to avoid doing research that might help the opposition's case!
This lack of incentive to do further research is a problem though as some crucial issues remain unanswered, particularly as relates to the dose-response relationship and other risk factors. One point our article doesn't make clear that perhaps it should, is that 5-HT2B agonists merely increase the risk of developing cardiac valvopathies, and even in patients prescribed high doses for long periods of time of the worst offending drugs like fenfluramine or pergolide, the majority of patients did not develop clinically relevant valvopathies, even though the risk of developing the heart problem was undoubtedly far higher than in the general population. So there is clearly more to it than just 5-HT2B agonism, I'd speculate genetic factors will also be very important as this would explain why some patients develop the valvopathies even with only relatively limited exposure, while others can take fenfluramine for years with no apparent heart damage at all.
Also its all very well for the FDA to recommend that patients be switched to alternative drugs that don't act at 5-HT2B, but this only works where suitable alternatives are available. With recreational drugs like MDMA the risk of long-term cardiotoxicity is clearly not going to stop people from using the drug seeing as neurotoxicity and legal sanctions have so far failed to do so. Since treatment with a 5-HT2B antagonist blocks both the serotonin release and behavioural effects of MDMA it seems likely that central 5-HT2B activation may be required for producing the effects of "empathogens", and therefore it is doubtful whether other empathogens which are not 5-HT2B agonists could even be developed. This means that it is very important to determine things like what level of exposure is required to initiate abnormal heart valve tissue growth, and what other factors are responsible for the pronounced variability in individual response. Perhaps a peripherally selective 5-HT2B antagonist may prove to be the best prophylaxis in these cases, and drugs of this class are currently being developed for treatment of heart disease, so it will be interesting to see how well they do in clinical trials. Meodipt ( talk) 02:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I hear ya on the suckiness of getting images deleted - I've lost a bunch myself. I blame the movie buffs; when we were slack about fair use, they were uploading enough stills and segments to reproduce the entire movie... 1/2 :-) Years ago I did a bunch of cleanup in the general fair use image category, it was just amazing what people were trying to pass off as legitimate uses. So we end up with a byzantine system of criteria because common sense wasn't doing the job. These days I rarely bother with non-free images, they're not worth running the gauntlet (plus I have a 2-year backlog of my own photos to upload!) The cropping of the Steinbeck picture to filter out the cigarette could actually be spun into a good rationale, odds that there is an interview or article somewhere where the stamp designer comments on that. Stan ( talk) 12:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I sympathize. Unfortunately, the page is a bit of a mess--- it would require extensive rewriting. I don't know if I have time to do it.
The main issue is that there is a totally useless (but theoretically concievable) definition of binding energy tacked on there, which is the energy required to split a nucleus into electrons, neutrinos, and protons (zero mass neutrinos). To fight this nonstandard not so useful definition, you need to rewrite the whole thing more clearly, so that it isn't as long. If you have some particular paragraph you want removed, tell me, I'll do it. Likebox ( talk) 00:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Steven: I've stashed some material I wanted to add to Wavelength at User:Brews ohare/Wavelength. This stuff has been repeatedly deleted by Srleffler in collaboration with Dicklyon, who make little attempt to suggest remedies, but love to tell me I am nuts. They deliberately removed from the article the stuff on General waveforms for which I made a RfC, without allowing time for anybody to respond. I thought that a bit high-handed. Perhaps you could offer a sanity check on this? Regards: Brews ohare ( talk) 14:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)