User talk:Sbharris/archive1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive #1: Contains all messages from 14 Nov 2005 (my welcome message) up to end of 2006.

Welcome!

Hello, Sbharris/archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! JFW | T@lk 19:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Viramidine

Image:Viramidine.png is done, enjoy it. Mykhal 12:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Holliday

You could, of course, be right about the photo on the Doc Holliday article. You might want to edit both the photo Talk page and the caption of the photo in the Holliday article, and yes, by all means, see if you can get your hands on the photo you think is legit. BTW, you may find people claiming copyright on a Doc Holliday photo (Denver public Library does, for example) but I, personally, think the claim is bogus. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. on the issue of copyrighting pre-1923 images. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Historical photos

Photos published in the US prior to 1923 are generally in the public domain, even when the site or book claims copyright (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.), so yes, you should be able to use them wherever you find them. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with link

Greetings Dr. Harris - I have responded to your message at Template_talk:Drugbox#Issue_with_link. --Arcadian 04:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little more research and found more options. Details are at Template_talk:Drugbox#Issue_with_link. --Arcadian 12:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gas phase heat capacities

Hello, thanks for your comments about my gas phase heat capacities table. You're right, it was foolish not to include the temperatures at which the heat capacities were taken, I'm not sure why I forgot that, considering temperature dependence of gas phase heat capacities is one of the easier things to compute using quantum mechanics. If you'd like to improve my table, I'd be glad to see it happen, go right ahead. And of course, if your numbers prove my point better than mine, I'll be even happier to see them put in there. As for where the extra energy goes when liquids are heated up, the answer to that question is that half of it goes into the potential energy of interaction between the liquid molecules, rather than all into kinetic energy like in a gas. And of course the reason why lighter (and stiffer) diatomics have lower heat capacities is because of the quantization of angular momentum for the rotational energy levels, and quantization of total energy for the bond between the two atoms, which causes the rotational and vibrational energy levels to become few and far apart for these diatomics. So, less energy is required to get the molecules into the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution corresponding to a higher temperature. Ed Sanville 17:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ed. I'll fix the numbers.

I think you missed the point about where the heat goes in liquids. Going into potential energy between "connected" liquid molecules is no different than that happens if the molecules were entirely connected, ie, solidified in a way that all vibrational modes are available to be excited (non-stiff). In that case, the C limit is R for every degree of freedom for each atom, which is (as you point out) composed of 1/2 R/mole for the kinetic and 1/2 R/mole for the potential energy storable in each mode/degree of freedom for each atom. So there's really no way to get better than 3R per mole of atoms, by that mechanism.

The whole point of heat capacities which result from translation and rotation is that they're always less than vibrational ones (measured PER ATOM), because translation and rotation are (after all) ultimately ways of storing just kinetic energy and you don't get the potential storage modes available with vibration. The LIMIT is what you get from non-stiff vibration (ie, the high temp limit for solids), and that's 3 R per mole of atoms.

So, I think I respectfully reject your answer, unless you can come up with a better argument.

Sbharris 22:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I completely missed your original point. I wasn't looking closely at the number you gave, 3.88 R per mole Br atoms in the liquid. Where did you get that number, and are you sure they're talking about per mole of atoms or molecules? If that is the correct value, then of course the only other place the energy could go is into electronic excitations, which actually would not surprise me too much with a molecule like bromine. Thanks for the interesting point! Ed Sanville 11:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the band structure, (MO energy diagram), for Br₂ is, but I suspect from the experimental data that it has a small HOMO-LUMO gap, possibly combined with a lot of degeneracy or closely-spaced excited levels. This would explain the significant contribution of the electronic excitations to the heat capacity, because then the electronic partition function would be significantly greater than 1, even at room temperature. A set of ab initio calculations could be performed on Br₂ in about 5 minutes to find out if this is the case, and also to calculate the expected electronic contribution to the heat capacity at 298K. Hmmm... sounds like an interesting project to do in my free time, I'll let you know what I find out. You raise some very interesting points which I have actually thought about many times during my walks to and from work:

"Anyway, I'm going to make the point to a greater extent that calculating "specific" molar heat capacities per mole of *molecules* really introduces an artificial parameter which makes the things less "intensive" (even though they still look intensive), because the larger the molecule, the better this number looks! That fakes out a lot of students. Diatomic gases at high temps go to 3.5 R, but that's really only 1.75 R per mole of atoms. For (linear) triatomic gases at full vibration you have 9-3-2 = 4 vibration modes so you get 4R + 5/2 R = 13/2 R = 6.5 R, which sounds like a lot. Until you divide by 3 and find it's only 2.17 R per atom. The bigger the molecule, the closer this gets to 3 R per atom (because the vibrational mode number goes up fast and swamps the rest).

Liquid water has a heat capcity of 9 R per mole which looks very impressive until you see that it's really 3 R per mole of atoms, so it's more or less the same as for solids with larger atoms. The amazing thing about water's heat capacity is NOT how large it is in specific terms: per mole of atoms, it's the same as for most metals. The amazing thing is that liquid water manages to do that at room temp, even with all the light H atoms thrown in. That's the hydrogen bonds and (I suspect) rotational modes storing potential energy (which can only happen in a liquid), which odd modes are like speed bumps and stand in for (and sort of ARE) vibrational modes that would otherwise be frozen out at these temps by the lightness of H (as happens in solid ice, where the per atom heat capacity is cut in half). Remarkable."

You're absolutely right about calculating specific heat capacities per molecule versus atom. This is especially interesting to consider when the idea of a molecule becomes less well-defined anyway, (such as in a heavily hydrogen-bonded liquid like water itself). And of course the idea of separate rotational, vibrational, translational modes all get intermixed and confused. In the end of course, all you really have are a bunch of energy levels, like in statistical mechanics. Of course you're right that the bigger the molecule, the closer it gets to 3R per atom; I have an amendment to make to your explanation though: low frequency vibrational modes swamp out all of the other modes. This is important because the vibrational modes that cause the approach to 3R have to be classically accessible, and therefore very low frequency so that $\hbar \omega$ is tiny and the partition function approaches the one with a continuous energy spectrum, thereby contributing about R heat capacity per mode. For big, floppy molecules this is quite easy to accomplish! Ed Sanville 11:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

doubly-labeled water test

I changed this from a cross-reference to a proper redirect page. Michael Hardy 20:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Energy edits

I have been activly editing the energy page. I noticed your recent edits. However, I have some minor differences in opinion. In my opinion there is no need for detailed explanations, providing links to pages that have the required information should be sufficient.

In addition, I believe I have more experience than you regarding communicating this topic to the general reader.Charlie 03:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my response on your user page. Sbharris 21:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invariant

Please, before you undertake any more large discussions of invariant mass, commit to memory the spelling of this word. Invariant, not invarient. I've noticed people cleaning up your spelling don't catch all the instances of this misspelling, so it requires three or four passes of cleanup. Please, let's make an effort. -lethe ^{talk +} 23:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got me. This is a common misspelling, almost a variant one :), and I'm one of the offenders. Mea culpa. It's one of those unstressed syllables in English which are all pronounced the same, as "ə". I see the Wiki has a whole article on the schwa, and these things have been a bane of mine. Spanish is so much nicer. Anyway, I'll try to commit it to memory as a word which forces the stress on the vowel I need: vari-A-tion. Sbharris 00:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deuterium lamps

You are certainly correct that the spectra of D2 lamps cannot/should not differ significantly from H2 gas-discharge lamps. All these are simple plasma discharge lamps, like the carbon arc lamp, but using H. You can see spectral aborption lines superimposed on the main radiation, but where does THAT radiation come from?? It's not blackbody. Some kind of thermoluminescense like lime-light and thorium gas mantles?? This whole thing is very confusing to me. D2 lamps are common in UV spectrophotometers as convenient medium power (20 watt) UV light sources that go all the way down to 100 nm or so. And I've read that their UV power and stability is superior to H2 lamps (though perhaps not by a lot-- enough to make them). But WHY should this be? Who invented the dang things, and why do they work better with D2? It must be some trick of higher plasma density at the same temp or something, due to the simple increased mass. But it would be nice to explain for the Wiki. Problem is, I can't seem to easily find the answer on the net. Do you know offhand? Sbharris 02:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. I searched for like an hour to try to find a good explanation for the source of the UV continuum in a D lamp. IANAP. I'm still VERY fuzzy on the whole thing but I think the source of the continuum spectrum is from the "smearing out" of the UV lines of the H (or D) discharge. The deuterium lamp is really a deuterium ARC lamp (try searching on "hydrogen arc" continuum) and I think the smearing out of the short wavelengths is due to spectral line broadening type things going on. As to why D instead of H is used, I suspect probably because it is a bit heavier and doesn't diffuse out of the bulb as quickly (slower movement of molecules). Though this is a guess. We should really get an actual physicist in on this. --Deglr6328 03:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I did get the arc connection, which is how I found out as much as I did. Carbon arc, hydrogen arc-- it's all the same process. More than spectral line broadening or else carbon arcs would give even better UV, yes? Any old gas has lines in the UV since elements in atomic number greater than H all have electrons bound at higher potentials than the 13 eV of atomic H. What's the process?? I guessed the same as you about lamps lasting longer due to lower diffusion, but one article really did claim the UV spec from D2 was stronger (more intense, not different frequency). So there's something very odd here.Sbharris 05:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. The answer appears to be "molecular emission" as what is responsible for the broadband continuum spectrum. Spectral broadening may play a very small roll but who knows. We were assuming all the light had to come from radiative transitions of lone hydrogen or deuterium ATOMS when actually it is the D₂ species in these lamps that causes the continuum spectrum via radiative decay of MOLECULAR electronic states. Just like a sulfur lamp does except with D2 instead of S2 the peak of the emission curve is shifted down by like 300nm. (apparently) This paper is helpful [1] page 8. At least I THINK this is correct. Why is D2 brighter than H2 in the UV for these lamps? Who knows but I suspect the answer involves understanding incredibly complex QM calculations way beyond me. It may have something to do with the fact that since the D2 molecule is more massive than H2 its vibrational trasitions (modes? is that the term?) that give rise to the continuum are slightly shifted....or....something... what do you think? --Deglr6328 06:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think this is right. Do you have access to the Institute of Physics online journals? If so, look at this paper [2]. It appears we have happened upon a question which is interesting even in today's physics! as it looks like they are still attempting to model the continuum spectrum. look at the modeled (calculated) spectra for H2 D2 HD and so on in this plot from the paper:

File:Calculated H2 spectrum in UV.jpg

and now look at the (properly) measured spectrum of a D2 lamp: [3] it cuts off a bit early but still! this has got to be the answer. continuum molecular emission. what a fun trip that was, learn something new every day I guess! --Deglr6328 21:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still around? do you think this looks right?--Deglr6328 06:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Started the article. Deuterium arc lamp.--Deglr6328 05:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm not intruding here, but I just picked up on this discussion. I've been trying to dig into the quantum physics behind sulfur lamps. It's not easy for me, because it's far beyond my education in physics. Is the Vibronic transition relevant to this discussion? Also, Franck-Condon principle seems to have something to do with the broad spectrum emitted by sulfur lamps; it shows up in a number of technical papers I've seen. SDC 06:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy contribution

I don't understand the point being made in your Zapruder contribution.

RPJ 08:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that Zapruder saw the SIDE of JFK's head blown out, above the ear. Not the back. The side. Okay? What he saw, was what his film shows. This is strong evidence the film was not altered, unless it was altered to fit his story, which seems unlikely. Sbharris 09:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let us assume all that is accurate, meaning the side of President Kennedy's head was blown out above the right ear: What conclusions, if any, can be drawn from that?

RPJ 20:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

None, by itself. However, a parietal exit wound is consistant with a lone-gunman roughly behind the president, whereas a large occipital exit wound (and nothing else in the head), is not. This is not to say the Dallas people didn't see what they saw. One of the autopsy photos looks at this wound from behind, and you see basically the entire right upper skull blasted away, However, the scalp is very, very tough (the hair through it acts like re-bar) and it appears that little of JFK's scalp was actually gone, even if he was missing some of the side of his skull and brain. With the scalp sides down, you get the Dallas rear wound if that flap is back. With the rear flap pulled over to show the small entrance hole (as Humes does in another famous photo) you see no big wound in the back of the head at all (this flap is covering a loss of skull underneath, with a beveled half-hole at the edge of what is gone). Put ALL the flaps back, with some artificial support with cement underneath (as the morticians finally did after the autopsy), and you see the head miraculously undamaged, with hair combed normally. Which Admiral Burkely, his doctor, reports. JFK was prepared relatively quickly for open-coffin viewing by all accounts (not just Burkely's-- also the mortician), and nobody needed a toupee to do it with. But all of this has confused many people. It needn't if you remember all or nearly all, of the scalp is there.

Speaking of which, Dr. Burkely's report in the WC does not discuss wounds anatomically. Okay, I now see page 2 of the death certificate, thanks. I don't think I've ever seen a typed addendum to a death certificate, so it's hardly expected. Dr. Burkely must have been confused about what a death certificate is for.

On page 2 of the death certificate Burkley does indeed locate the back wound at "about" the 3rd thoracic verteba, but I'm afraid the photos from the autopsy and the official autopsy doctors' report (which both show C6) has to take precedent over an informal report. If Dr. Burkely had some big inside knowledge to report, as you suggest in your revisions to the article, he should have included it in his 10 page letter, not stuff like how many flowers he gave to Jackie. In his report he does say he spent a lot of time shuttling between the autopsy and the family, so one supposes he missed the befuddlement of the autopsy doctors about an exit for the back/neck wound. Humes later found out about the trach by talking over the phone to a Dallas doctor, long after the autopsy had concluded. Wups. Dr. Burkely could presumably have put him straight if he knew enough to do it. But he either didn't, or was missing. So he's not in the picture as a big expert on JFK's wounds, no matter what he wrote on the death certificate, and no matter if he was both in Dallas and at Bethesda. He didn't do his main job given two chances at it (in the autopsy room and in his letter to the WC), so why should we assume he had anything real to offer? Sbharris 22:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pussy Galore

What is your source for saying that this character was a nod to Catwoman? Thats a gross error, in my opinion and contradicts everything I've read on the subject. K1Bond007 23:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this is a gang of all-female cat burglars. Trained as acrobats, called "abrocats" (a pun). Led by a trapeze artist woman named Pussy who doesn't like men, on general principle, meow. Maybe Fleming had never heard of Catwoman, but as a nemesis for an action hero, Pussy Galore of the novel is pretty much as close as it gets to Catwoman, without being Catwoman. Coincidence, you think?

Maybe if Bond had gone up against an acrobatic man who liked artifical webbing, and maybe named Arachno Grande, you'd complain if I thought it was a nod to spiderman? Or you'd just figure Fleming was unusually creative?Sbharris 00:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Original Research. According to published researchers, Pussy Galore is named after Mrs. 'Pussy' Deakin (Livia Stela), an SOE agent. According to Noel Coward (a good friend of Fleming's) and his partner Graham Payn, she's based off Blanche Blackwell, an intimate friend of Fleming's. That's citable. We can quote that. We can't add this Catwoman stuff because you can't prove it. K1Bond007 05:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear fission

You deleted the sentence about David Hahn's pile, pointing out that "no-one thought he had produced nuclear reactions" -- but I understand differently. In particular, the Harper's article (c. 2000) on him said that the radioactivity level from his pile was increasing steadily, a sign that he was indeed inducing fissions, if at too low a level to achieve criticality. I wasn't there so I don't know -- do you have another source? Cheers, zowie 14:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only person who thought the radioactivity was increasing steadily, was Hahn. No official agency, and certainly not the NRC, ever measured such a bizarre thing. Hearsay comments in popular magazines are not science reports. The Radioactive Boy Scout does have some pointed comments from experts why it is very unlikely that Hahn ever created any new radiation activity, but of course they are not prominent because somebody is trying to sell a book. It's not very interesting if the synopsis is "The story of some dumb kid who stuck together amounts of all the commercial radioisotopes he could think of and locate, hoping to get some kind of reaction. But didn't." So, if you think otherwise for the WP, getting a good verified source for this idea, is up to YOU. It's a far-out claim and it requires something other than rumor-driven technologically naive journalism. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence Sbharris 15:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoah, there, Tex! No worries -- I'm not spoiling for a fight on this one -- just curious what your sources were. We know from the article that he only had a few 1-inch cubes of U-238, plus an Am/Be neutron source. Now that I think about it, even if he managed to moderate his Am/Be neutrons, the U-238 (n,fission) cross section is only a few tens of millibarns, compared to a few hundred barns for U-235, so it's reasonable that his pile didn't work (if I read the article right, it couldn't have been more than a few hundred cubic inches total, yes?) -- on the other hand, it would be useful to see the actual calculation through. (Of course, he could also have been simply neutron-activating the rest of the shed...) zowie 17:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy pages

Hi; please stop adding nonsense and commentary to the policy pages. These are important pages and I will apply a very stringent definition of disruption to non-productive edits there. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do stop using policy pages as a soapbox. Jkelly 19:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The policy page on verifiable sources contains no verifiable sources (by its own definition). The policy page on reliable sources contains no reliable sources (by it's own definition). Please explain why pointing this out is disruptive. Is what I have said not true? Sbharris 19:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The policy page on reliable sources contains no reliable sources..." Can you point me to a reliable source that supports your assertion? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is more clever than useful. It is obvious by inspection, and the burden is on the editor to provide reliable sources for citation, not the revising editor who removes material because such sources don't exist. Do you need a citation for that? It is WP:RS. Why do you fail to see the problem here?Sbharris 20:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious by inspection? It sounds like you want to be released from the very requirement you demand we adhere to, in order to make your case that we should adhere to it. Appropriately enough for something that will ultimately approach solipsism, you can have the last word. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Mainspace" refers to the encyclopedia articles themselves. The different spaces within Wikipedia are denoted by their prefixes (i.e., Wikipedia:, User:, Talk:, Image:, etc.), with the exception of mainspace, which doesn't have a prefix. Most content-related guidelines and policies are designed specifically for mainspace. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 21:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but as I said, if it walks and quacks like a duck, it should be treated as a duck. Policy and guideline articles are informational wikis which need RS and V just as much as any other main Wiki. The relaxation of these was probably intended for User: and Talk: sections. However, there's no way to know that, since these have no reliable sources and no verifiability.Sbharris 01:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that you find this stuff immensely entertaining, but Wikipedia isn't the place for engaging in extended epistemological debates.

And who are YOU to say what Wikipedia is or isn't the place for? Your ego must be immense.

My opinion is that Wikipedia is the place for extended epidemiological discussions of topics which are intrinsically epidemiological, and WP:RS and WP:V qualify for that, if any topics do. Further, the archives of many pages of such discussion there in the past, supports the idea that many other people agree with me on that issue. I'm sorry you do not. Your problem.

These policies work because we behave as if they worked (much as paper money works because we behave as if it had value).

These policies work, but perhaps not as efficiently as they could. One of the ways to improve efficiency is to make it clear where each given "policy" originates (something that doesn't happen now)Sbharris 17:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a lot of these debates as, basically, trolls. --Tony Sidaway 09:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And whereever I find you have, I will restore them, as worthwhile discussions. I am not a troll, but a serious contributor to Wiki on a wide variety of medical, scientific, historical, and cultural topics. If we eventually find ourselves in front of arbitration, I don't think your position will be strong. But feel free to push it to that if you feel it's that important. I will tell you it's that important to me. Sbharris 17:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WP:RS and its parent, WP:V

Could we discuss the relationship of WP:RS to WP:V a bit? I see you are attempting to introduce the idea that WP:RS is not a reasonable and logical build from policy. It is the first guideline, the first step of "how to do it", the first step up from policy which is only a broad, general statement of intent. Terryeo 23:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. I have less problem with guidelines than policies. Guidelines can't be used to bludgeon other people with. And I think the RS guidelines contain much wisdom, as I said. My main problem is with the V policy, which gives far too much power to often ignorant newspaper journalists, as does its NOR cousin. I have the feeling that RS is meant to try to fix the damage done by NOR and V, but it really doesn't help much. I would fix this by making V merely a guideline. Let Jimbo keep his NPOV as the only policy; it's one of the few WP really requires.

Lastly, as you see, I think that the articles on RS and V should be treated as standard WP articles, just as their redirects imply. They both need V, and they both need RS. Though I wouldn't require it. I'm asking merely to be allowed to point it out, with the appropriate header. Sbharris 01:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly willing to discuss with you. I see WP:NOR as an essential statement which rests on Jimbo's statement of NPOV. And then I see WP:V as an essential statement to clarify how Jimbo's vision of neutral can be achived. My understanding of V is that "widely published" be presented as having been widely published. Therefore a single publication of high quality (say the AMA makes publishes a statement) can be presented alongside a dozen newspaper sources which contradict them, yet such an article will be well sourced, be neutral and be useful to readers of the article. WP:RS takes the broad, general statements of WP:V and specifies things such as "newsgroups aren't useable as secondary sources", etc. Specifies things which are not intutive to every editor, things which are slightly argueable, etc. My discussing is not an attempt to curtail what you wish to do. But I am thinking the logical inter-consistancy of policies and guidelines could use some improvement. Terryeo 19:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with you Sbharris. Incidentally, there is a banned user who is attempting to redefine the word "publish" for wikipedia usage and attempting to make RS a policy. I hope this person does not harass you for your views or bait you and accuse you of a personal attack. --Fahrenheit451 01:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fahrenheit451, I appreciate the attention you laude on me by following me around by looking at my contributions and posting immediately after my post about my status. However, you have been spoken to about this sort of action and I hope you will cease. What I am actually doing is none of those things you state, but engaging in discussion, and that only at the pleasure Sbharris, whose page this is. Terryeo 19:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I hate to find myself involved in what is apparently an old conflict between two users, neither of which I know in the slightest. Please know that I wish both of you the best. I'm sure you're both great guys with good intentions and hearts of gold. But why continue any conflict with each other on MY talk page?? You each have talk pages. Be nice and use them, and don't erase.Sbharris 19:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are Sbharris, and sorry about that. In any event and getting back to the discussion, if you are willing, I see a logical development of the policies and guidelines sprouting from the single stable datum, "Wikipedia will reflect a neutral point of view". I'll spell it out more fully if you wish? Terryeo 03:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free, but neutral points of view do not reflect reality. And people who believe that all points of view are equally valid, don't even survive Los Angeles traffic, let alone life in general. So it's a very incomplete philosophy, and I'm not going to waste time trying to construct a worldview on such an edifice. And for those of you with valid driver licences who are still above ground, I would suggest putting your mouths in gear with your obvious history of actual bodily actions.Steve 05:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales' talk page

I asked a legitimate question on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Why did you remove it? - Slow Graffiti 22:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere apologies if I did (I can't get the compare versions to work right, or I could go back and check). I was attempting to re-add something which somebody else had removed of MINE. I thought I had left everybody else's stuff (which would include yours) intact. Again, sorry, if I didn't. I had absolutely no intention to do anything but re-add MY stuff.Sbharris 00:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. No harm done! - Slow Graffiti 00:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's missing?

You've repeatedly mentioned on the WP:V talk page that you can't find various historical records of relating to the policy. As far as I know, all the records you could want are available. 1) (Nearly) every edit made to the Talk pages for WP:V is recorded in the page history, and publically available. 2) Copies of the content on the talk pages are copied to /Archive subpages so they can be searched by google, et all....4) (Nearly) every edit made to the policy pages themselves is recorded in the page history, and publically available.

Okay, let's start here. Would you please tell me the google command to retrieve the WP:V Talk archives? I would like to see what was being said 1 and 2 years ago there. Thanks. Sbharris 00:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish: 1 year ago, and 2 years ago. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks, but those are pretty fancy switches. Where did you get them? Now that I have them, I can simply paste in any Wiki and Talk I like. Is all of this somehow available from the mainspace or talk article current pages? Once you are in the historical sections it seems you can browse history all the way back. Getting there is the problem.

I hate to repeate what you said below, but - are you joking? The history page is available on every page by clicking on "history" right next to "edit this page". Once there, at the top of the page is a line that says: "(Latest | Earliest) View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)." clicking on the respective words gets you where you would expect.

Except you can't go past 500 that way, and that's 8 months for the page in question!

I should have been more clear, but if you read the help page, you'll see that the 20 | 50 etc. numbers select more less per page; it's the (prev 50) (next 50) links that move you through the history. So the 500 limit is less of a problem. Another thing that ought to be on the help page, but isn't, is that 500 isn't the max per page, 2,000 is. If you edit the URL, you can put 2,000 on the same page, which is helpful sometimes. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The only "trick" I used was realizing that when you click on "next 50" it puts the time of the revision at the top of the list in the URL. I just adjusted that part of the URL to refect the times you wanted. I hope that this is explained in the page Wikipedia:Page_history (which is linked from every history page) if it's not, please do add it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

IT isn't, and I will. Clever of you. Unhelpful of Wiki.

Great, thanks! Wiki (by which I assume you mean Wikipedia) is written by volunteers just like you - the reason it wasn't in the documentation yet is because no-one had gotten around to writing it. If/when you add it, someone will have (namely you) - that's the only way things get done around here, sadly enough. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, misread your request - you wanted a google URL, like this one: site:en.wikipedia.org inurl:Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability 2005, or this one: site:en.wikipedia.org inurl:Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability 2004. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Pretty non-obvious search terms, but again, thanks.Sbharris 01:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious is in the eye of the beholder. The documentation on searching Wikipedia with google is not as good as it ought to be (last I checked) but google's Help pages make the site and inurl options pretty clear, if I remember correctly. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Er, might want to try it again and pretend you don't have any inside information. But you obviously succeed, and my hat's off to you.

What do you mean by "inside information". I have expierence (both on Wikipedia, and on the net in general), is that what you mean? Are you saying that Google's help pages arn't clear enough? If so, that's the best reason in the world to write better ones for Wikipedia. I'd be glad to help (although I don't want to do it all by myself). JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

3) The wikipedia mailings lists (wikien-l, wikipedia-l, foundation-l, wikitech-l, etc.) are all fully and publically archived, and searchable through Gmane.

As to searching archived mailing lists on a third party server like Gmane, you're joking, right?

Er, no, I wasn't joking. You asked where the archives were. I told you. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You expect me to read it ALL? That's not a reference or a citation-- that's a point in the direction of a library.

The complaint I was responding to was that you said the information wasn't available. I pointed to where it was available, now you say that wasn't what you meant? JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Key words? What key words do I want for a policy change which I many not know what the policy changers called it when they did it? Why don't you illustrate it for me. I'd like to know the history of the Jimbo's page lock policy. Ready set go.

Ok. First, Jimbo's page lock "policy" isn't a policy. It's a technical change.

Well, potato, potahto. A technical change, like deciding to (say) start Proxy blocking (something entirely different of course)[4] in March 2005 with no previous discussion or concensus, affects the way people use the service. It is an effective policy of the organization.

I realize it affects the way people use the service; we are using "policy" in two different ways here - you seem to think anything that "affects the way people use the service" is a policy, but I (and most of Wikipedia) use the word "policy" only to refer to non-technically implemented "rules" which all editors are urged to follow. If something affects users, but isn't that, we don't call it a policy. But in any case, it is merely word choice. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And , as for finding references documenting that change: here's one, from gmane, with a few seconds of searching; and here's another, on-wiki, from the Village Pump in Dec 2005, documenting a considerable discussion on the topic. And your problem was what, again?

The problem is the very reference you gave me could have been easily used to verifiably reference a Wiki somewhere on the topic of page creation: "Jimbo decided to do an experiment; word from on high. [5]Just like that. Asking users to search for it the way you have, is sort of like referring them to medline when they have a medical question.

BTW, you seem to be mis-using the term Wiki - above, I think you mean "page", or more specifically, "help page", or more specifically still, "Wikipedia namespace page". Wiki doesn't mean any of those things, and using it the way you have been simply leads to confusion on the part of your readers. Again, AFAIK, the only reason the page about page creation doesn't mention the change from disallowing unregistered users from creating pages is because no-one has gotten around to adding it. It's not a conspiracy. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just learned a lot from you, but it's damned arcane stuff. Absolutely none of it appears in the standard introduction to WP. So why is an encyclopedia put together like this?

Because everything, including the "standard" introduction to WP, has all been written by random volunteers, and, until now, no-one has bothered to add this information to the "standard introduction". Please do so. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's my question.

I hope the above provides something of an answer. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I now have the tools it will take me to spend the several hours figuring out just who and why put in the "professional journalist" reference as an acceptable self-publishing V and RS. But I shouldn't have to do it. The people who made the decission could easily have referenced it at the time.

Ah, yes - searching for which edit added a given phrase is a pain, I agree. Someone may have written a tool to ease this, but I haven't come across it yet. I still don't exactly understand what you mean by "referenced it at the time" though. Do you mean they could have mentioned in their edit summary: "Adding "professional journalist" to the list of acceptable forms of self-publishing", or something else? I certainly agree that bad, or incomplete, edit summaries are a constant, and deeply irriating, problem. That's one reason why I make a habit of always (well, nearly always) providing an edit summary, even for talk page conversations like this. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Here, let's see how good you are. Who put in that reference and when? It seesm to be easy for you to do these things, so let's take you as gold standard and see how easy it can be. Sbharris 06:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Howbout you look for it, and lay out the methods you use, and I'll critique them and suggest any ways I can think of to make them more effiecent for the next time. (And, btw, please don't cut off signatures, like you did right below here) JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

5) The Foundation Board publishes resolutions and minutes of their meetings, on http://wikimediafoundation.org/ . What's missing? JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

So, does the above resolve your issue with missing information, or is there something else? JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, see above. But if you can do it in less than 10 minutes, I'll just conclude that I'm unusually slow at finding information online, and give up. How about that? Perhaps I can even write a helpful Wiki: "Hey bub, since there's google, you wouldn't need any refs if you weren't so dumb and lazy." Sbharris 06:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. You are talking to someone who wrote Talk:Warren Beatty/References - don't even start with the claim that "you wouldn't need any refs". But not having detailed references is different (and better) than not having the necessary archives at all. I don't dispute your claim that the links between discussions and the page changes they led to is nowhere as well specified as it could be; I just dispute your claim that any (well, nearly any) of the required information is missing, rather than merely badly linked. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Legal threat

Per your legal threat here, you have been blocked indefinitely, pending the conclusion of litigation or your withdrawal of all legal threats and assurance of future adherence to the No Legal Threats policy. You may make contact with BradPatrick, Foundation counsel and interim Execuitve Director, to discuss legal issues. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest Essjay be desysoped for this abuse of admin privilages, but judging from their userpage, it looks like they've now left Wikipedia, following various issues... --Rebroad 14:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A legal threat is where you personally threaten legal action. I have not done so, ever. Pointing out that continual violation of a law or policy will result in consequences, such as as engaging in libel is likely to result in lawsuits against you, is not a legal threat, but a mere statement of reality, like saying murder leads to prison.

Your actions amount to administratorial abuse of the worst kind. Fix them. User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 07:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have seen no legal threats, so I have unblocked. -lethe ^{talk +} 12:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lethe. Help from an unexpected source! I'm still dealing now with what appears to be an IP autoblock which is software generated, and so general admin unfixable. It expires tomorrow. If you hear from me before then, it will be from another computer. :) We'll see.

I'm shocked that an administrator can place this kind of permanent block on somebody, and their IPs, without consultation with anyone else, without any very defensible reason, and then cynically watch while the block itself prevents the victim from seeking any of Wikipedia's much vaunted stepped-mediation processes. That's a pretty nasty feature of the system, which needs attention. Steve 16:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, adminstrator abuse is pretty nasty stuff, and unfortunately there's quite a lot of it. A lot of people have thought of ways to try to instill some modicum of admin accountability in the system, but so far no serious proposals. The current system has a lot of inertia. That's why I'm glad I'm also an administrator, so I can revert some of the more egregious violations as I see them. That said, I will suggest that it wouldn't hurt for you to try to be more cool in your discussions. I looked at the conversation, and while you never did make any legal threats, you did make some language that warned of possible blocking, and in the context, I can see why it was misinterpreted. You can see the conversation about your block at WP:AN/I, the administrator's noticeboard. Oh and, as for the autoblock, I can probably fix that if you tell me the IP. -lethe ^{talk +} 17:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry for butting in here, but I happend to see this having still had your page on my watchlist from our conversation above). You can email Lethe with this URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Emailuser&target=Lethe - you are probably more likely to get satisfaction that way. ;-) JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I sent it to there in "clear." Jeez are you the Janitor who knows where EVERYTHING in the building is?? Steve 21:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I try, in my small way. Why do you think I use the nickname: "the juggling janitor"? ;-) JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Request for bot task: lower case element names!

Hi there,

sorry I took so long to reply to your suggestion; you left your message on my user page rather than on my talk page, and I didn't notice it until last night. Anyhow, yes, I like the idea, and I've had a go at implementing it. There are rather a lot of exceptions though. As examples, Mercury the planet and the god should be capitalized, as should Gold, Silver (and Bronze) medals, and the Iron age.

A quick question: are you sure that the elements names based on proper nouns (eg Californium) are definitely supposed to be lowercased? It may well be correct, but it looks a little bit odd to me. Perhaps I just need to re-educate my oddness detector.

Cheers, Cmdrjameson 17:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it IS odd (one reason it needs doing). Even einsteinium is lowercase. But this follows the general convention of SI, which actually deliberately attempts to use lowercase units and other things derived from proper names, so as to SHOW that they are something other than the proper person or place name. Thus SI speaks of the watt and the joule. But the symbols remain uppercase, so it's joule but J.

Yes, Mercury the planet is an exception I missed. As a place it should be capitalized in English. As for Iron Age, I wouldn't capitalize the Iron unless you capitalize the Age part. Thus, Ice Age, but but not Ice age or even Stone age. The same goes for medals. If you write Gold Medal, it's okay to capitlize gold. But I would think not otherwise. Writing Gold medal looks very funny.

Thanks for your attension to this. It should be interesting to see how many you find. Steve 17:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Arbcom case

Hello, the instructions on the Arbcom page state "This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment." Therefore, I am bringing this discussion here.Johntex\^talk 21:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are neither arbitrator nor clerk. True, if any of them wish to refactor, they can do so. So far they have not. I have certainly given them my reasons to do so, but what they do is up to them. Steve 22:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The arbcom has broad powers, they may take actions pertaining to either party in the arbitration case, as well as against third parties involved in the case. For example, they have the right to reinstate your permanent block or to impose other sanctions against you as a part of the arbitration you have filed. Likewise, they may take action on the question of what HoustonMcCoy should do in order to be able to legitimately assert a special right to edit the page.
There is no need to file another arbitration case. Johntex\^talk 21:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They can indeed do whatever they like, but muddying the waters by bringing in other problems doesn't help them with individual problems, like administrator abuse of nonadministrator editors. I think there IS a need to file another arbitration case if McCoy's own edits to his own bio are an issue for ArbCom. That's your suggestion, not mine. However, that issue has nothing to do with what happened to me. I want ArbCom to consider THAT action carefully. I don't want them distracted by Houston McCoy and his lawyers and his legal actions or whatever. Perhaps you feel differently. We agree to disagree, and our reasons for disagreeing are now before ArbCom. Just as they should be.Steve 22:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we will have to agree to disagree. I think Essjay's actions were no where near to being abuse of admin powers. I wasn't convinced about whether your statement was a legal threat or not. Because of my uncertainty and also because of my involvement in the editing of the article - I took your case to ANI to let someone else make the call. Essjay took the action he thought was proper. The Arbcom needs to know the full facts of the matter so that they can decide if you have broken policies or not, and what your penalty should be. While they are weiging the entire circumstances of the page, they may (or may not) choose to deal with HoustonMcCoy. If they don't, then we'll worry about that when the time comes, depending on what he is up to at that time. Johntex\^talk 22:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, while I didn't agree with John's and Essjay's assessment about the existence of legal threats, I also don't think that Essjay's misjudgment was an abuse, and I think going to ArbCom was o'erhasty and ill-advised. -lethe ^{talk +} 22:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is of course respected, particularly as you're the one who undid the damage. But had it been you permanently blocked, I suspect you'd feel differently about it. Matter of perspective. It's really two levels of misjudgement. It's easy to forgive a misjudgment involving a fast read and a jump to conclusion of threatened barratry. Not so easy to forgive is a permablock of a real editor with thousands of edits in his history, all easy to look at. For an admin to do that would take real narcissism. I don't think if I were an admin I'd ever do it to ANYBODY with a history of solid edits. If it was clear they'd suddenly gone mentally ill, I'd tell them to take their lithium and come back when they'd calmed down. So I think (that as a general statement) any permablocks of a real contributing editor (and I don't mean blocks of high speed vandalbots or people who are nutcases from the getgo) shows a real lack of not only fundamental judgement, but also empathy. Again, a general opinion.

Somebody has to go to ArbCom on these things, when somebody is just stomped on. If not me, then who? Essjay himself actually recommended, no doubt tongue-in-cheek, that I write to the Arbitrators. He didn't think I'd be able to do it publicly. Knew I wouldn't because he'd made sure I couldn't. That really, really gets to me. Again, you have be in my shoes. Steve 23:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I think perhaps you may not realize is that permanent blocking is the standard reply to any legal threat, not matter how well established the user is. See WP:NLT. So there is only one level of misjudgment here: whether or not there was a legal threat. Also, blocked users are always allowed to appeal their blocks to the ArbCom, even though they can't edit. See WP:BAN. I'm not sure exactly how they're supposed to be able to do that, maybe email? but I do know that it is ArbCom policy to hear any appeal of a blocked user. So the only real question here is whether there was a legal threat or not. If there was, then Essjay's actions were in accord with practice. Of course, I do think Essjay and Johntex misjudged your comments. -lethe ^{talk +} 23:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into it, and I could not figure out how ArbCom is supposed to hear appeals of the blocked. I don't think THEY know. It's difficult enough to bring case before them if you have full editorial power, and proxy use by the banned is actually against policy, I just found out (perhaps they weren't thinking of it for appeals, but if so, they missed an obvious flaw). I think it's a hole in the system. But anybody reading here, feel free to enlighten me. Juggling Janitor, local expert on everything, maybe knows.

BTW, if you look at WP:BAN it only gives 4 ways of being banned. One is by community concensus, which I have evaded, thanks to you. The others are decisions by the ArbCom, Jimbo, or the Board. That's it. Generally, banning is supposed to be the end-result of a WP:DR process, not something that happens just because some admin issues a block and the blocked person can't figure out how to appeal it (or nobody really has time to look at it). This whole thing is really ugly. Steve 00:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the whole WP system through new eyes, I can see that it's basically an invitation for me to transgress one of my own laws, which I learned long ago: "Do not, unless you have no choice, put quantities of life or resources into any enterprise in which you are not owner or part owner." Doing so simply invites others to abuse you, which they will inevitably do, causing you to lose that part of your life which you donated to a project. It happens sooner or later. In some ways, you're lucky if it happens sooner. Words of wisdom from me to you, BTW. Take for what they're worth. Steve 00:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I thank you for the advice, but I'm deeply in love with Wikipedia. You're probably right that I would think differently if it were me on the receiving end of a permaban, but I think I fit in with the community here well enough that that won't happen. Also, the GFDL license makes me feel that even if I don't have partial ownership, no one else does either. It protects my MeatBall:RightToFork, which is sort of like ownership.

How can a licensed physician hold this view? Does that mean you think volunteering your time to United Way (for example) would be a bad idea because you are not a part owner? Maybe you meant that you should not volunteer for a for-profit? I'm just puzzled because most physicians I know volunteer their time pretty generously to organizations they have no ownership interest in. And no, I'm not requesting that you pass credential verification ;) MikeURL 19:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the issue here, how easy it is to get banned, and how hard it is to appeal a ban, I tend to agree that it's an ugly problem. But this is a policy issue, and the ArbCom is a judicial body, so cannot resolve it. ArbCom can only rule on existing policy, it does not device new policy. If you seriously wanted to address this grievance, I think Village Pump or maybe the mailing list would be the right venue for it, rather than taking it to ArbCom (which would only be appropriate if you thought Essjay violated policy, which perhaps you do). The problem with Village Pump and the mailing list is that all you can get there is endless discussion; it's very hard to affect change that way, whereas ArbCom can actually enact decisions and actuate results. -lethe ^{talk +} 00:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to remember that "indefinite" does not necesarily mean "permenant". It is not unusual for an admin to make an indefinite block and then post on WP:ANI to get concensus as to how long the block should be, then to go back and modify the block. As for appealing to Arbcom when you are blocked, you can do this through e-mail. Besides e-mailing an Arbcom member, one could e-mail any admin and ask them to either (a) take the case to the arbcom on behalf of the blocked user or (b) unlblock the blocked user with the stipulation that they will limit their edits to preparing the arbcom case. Another option is to put {{help}} on your User or Talk page. Johntex\^talk 01:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JFK Assassination Page.

I would suggest not wasting your time trying to be reasonable with RPJ. Look in the archives to see previous attempts to be fair and rationale on this topic.

Continue to make fair and NPOV edits, and don't get caught up with some the conspiracy theorists who wish to distort the article with dubious claims and evidence.

Good luck and welcome. Ramsquire 22:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, but fair and NPOV edits are of course in the mind of the beholder. And you're right about not wasting time on RPJ. The JFK assassination conspiracy theorists have their own page (JFK assassination theories) but it's not enough for them. Dealing with them elsewhere is rather like trying to deal with the Twin Tower bomb theorists, which is to say, like swinging at the hydra. It's not a job for somebody with no weight to throw in an edit war. Admins get to do whatever they like on WP, and the rest of us get to stick with spelling and math errors and such. That's really what "anybody can edit" means, you know. So if YOU are an admin, feel free to take on RPJ. I am not, in the interests of truth and justice, going to revert nutcases until I find that finally somebody has complained about it on WP:ANI, to one of the ANI. Not worth it. For all I care, they can finally write on Wikipedia that JFK's head just exploded spontaneously, like those cases of unexplained combustion. Steve 04:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfArb thanks

I left a comment because I don't want any more straight-faced editors beblocked for being too unscrupulous - because I was a victim when I first joined Wikipedia. When I created an article that has been declared "vanity" by another editor Jersyko some 2 years ago, I argued with him. Then finally the s-delete decision was made by some sysops, but Jersyko's pin-point against me didn't stop. He, who I believe wasn't a sysop, reverted all my subsequent edits on other articles such as militarism with an edit summary "rv some questionable edits" [6]. Apparently he thought that I was questionable, not the edits. And as a result I left Wikipedia for four months afterwards. I could only join back Wikipedia through the help by some other Hong Kong Wikipedians at WP:HKWNB. I am thick-skinned, so I returned 4 months later. But not everybody in the world has this tolerance. Therefore, I think I should voice out my opinion and prevent more newcomers from being bitten again. --D e ryc k C. 03:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minority view

Thanks for your comments on the orthomolecular medicine talkpage. Is there any evidence you would know of, that would suggest that the belief in alternative medicine treatments is a minority view among qualified professionals? ackoz 17:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By definition it is, since anytime a (formerly alternative) treatment becomes accepted by the majority, it ceases to be "alternative"!

What we presently label "alternative medicine" (or complimentary medicine) is a vast attic full of junk, or a garage-sale if you like, in which one may profitably search for treasures (e.g., effects of fish oil in inflammation, and thus a huge range of pathogenic processes). And they do exist. But don't expect them. They are as rare as finding genuine overlooked antiques worth a fortune.

Where, in all of this, does one look first? Well, stay away from obvious quackey like homeopathy. Nutrition and plant and diet therapy (much of which is labeled "orthomolecular medicine") at present actually seem to be the place to look most profitably for overlooked stuff. But it's just a corner of the junkpile. Remember, a label makes no difference; you still need to prove it.

Now, anybody with much experience in farming or husbandry soon gets a pretty strong bias in favor of the power of diet and exercise and hygeine as basic answers to be tried first, for just about all medical problems! And it's true that doctors' views long these lines are perverted somewhat by the large amount of data which is generated by clinical trials of patentable entities, like drugs. But all of this not some giant conspiracy! Rather, it's very basic problem (or feature) of how scientific information gets generated and transferred. Any problems are generic to the whole intellectual property system, and are in NO sense somehow unique to medicine. Doctors are just caught up in the same epistemological trap everybody else in the world is. Okay, I will admit that the FDA and like organizations exacerbate an already nasty problem. However, these organizations didn't invent themselves. People have a visceral fear of being "poisoned" which I think goes right down to their genes. And it makes them do really, really stupid things. Like cooking in their own greenhouse emissions instead of building pebble bed nuke reactors. However, I digress. I just want you to be aware that this is not some kind of persecution of one group by another. Never attribute to malice what is more easily explained by simple stupidity or ignorance or cultural prejudice or evolutionary psychology which is no longer relevent to a modern tech world. Steve 18:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Sweetgum

Thanks for the note! I'll look into where I got it from tomorrow (I did get it from a reference somewhere, it isn't my personal observation) - MPF 01:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias. And if you live where you can find one of these ubiquitous trees (which you probably do), do be sure to check for yourself. There's nothing like holding the thing in your own hands (as I did today) to stiffen your spine in an academic war. Steve 02:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve - I've traced it back to (at least) R J Preston's North American Trees (1948), so it is an old one. I'd suspect it comes from examining old, fallen gumballs, where the opened capsule looks very like a 'single' horn that has split in half to release the seeds. But even a casual glance at an immature, unopened gumball shows that's not so. When I originally typed the offending passage 2 years ago, there weren't any decent photos on wiki commons the way there are now, so I was going wholly by literature, and I fear I used one that wasn't the clearest. The FNA text is a lot clearer. Been checking up in a few books today, two seeds per capsule is regular, though often only one of them develops, the other aborts. On checking a Sweetgum myself, I can't - there is actually a young tree near where I live, but it is very rarely planted here, and even when it is, it grows poorly and never produces flowers or seed. The summers here are too cold for it; e.g., today, midsummers day, max temperature 12° . . . that's cold even for here (late June average about 16° or 17°), but Sweetgum wants more like 25° to 35° at this time of year. Come to think of it though, technically, looking at a gumball myself would count as 'original research' so under wiki rules I'd not be allowed to anyway ;-) - MPF 20:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is EXACTLY why I didn't just change it in the Wiki--- I knew I'd run afoul of people complaining about NOR since I'd just gone outside and used my eyeballs, rather than consulted some dusty tome of botanical info, which was and is wrong. :). This is one for the NOR page. Any suggestions? We may have to write to some prof of botany someplace and get HIM or HER to look, and publish a formal correction someplace. If all these people have been repeating some half-century old figure instead of spending 5 minutes to count something, it will be hilarious. Steve 21:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting one, I've wondered about it a bit myself on occasion, if there is some fact or other readily demonstrable from a photo posted on the page, but not in published literature. Rare that it will happen, though. At least with Sweetgum we can cite FNA which gets it right (that one really ought to be in the refs, anyway, seeing as it is justabout the most authoritative ref there is on the North American flora! . . . I'll add it now). Actually the whole American Sweetgum page could do with a checkup, there's been several much better photos appeared on commons since it was last updated extensively, some of the old lo-res ones could be ditched - MPF 21:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll photograph some nice green young ones this week and upload one, so we have comparison pics of early and old gumballs. Yes, do change the text to the correct 2 spikes per capsule, and let's see how fast the new correct info propagates across the web. Most of the info out there now, as you will see from Google, is from this Wiki, referenced or not-- an example of how powerful WP has gotten. So when you change it back to correct, there's going to be some inertia. But eventually the mirror and fork sites will catch up. Hah. Changing accepted "truth" by hitting a key.... Steve 22:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Check it over, in case I've got anything wrong! Any pics you can get are always useful - come to think of it, can you get any hickory pics of known species identity? Commons is desparately short of decent hickory pics. Actually, all sorts of eastern US trees are short of good pics, most of the few PD ones from USDA are such low res as to be worthless, and there don't seem to be many wikipedians doing tree photos in the region. - MPF 22:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorocarbon is chem collaboration of the month

Thanks for the note on your personal liking of fluorocarbons. I like them too. And agree that perfluorocarbons (boron hydrides also) should be taught in organic chemistry. Given your interests, I just wanted to remind you that the Wikipedia:Chemistry Collaboration of the Month is fluorocarbon, and we're looking for material.--Smokefoot 23:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earp vendetta ride

Regarding one of your contributions/edits to the article "Earp vendetta ride". If you get the map out you will see that a train ride "east" out of Arizona, especially from Tombstone, you would go to Silver City, New Mexico, not Silver Springs, Nevada. I don't know enough about the story to fix it, but I do know that the way it is written is geographically incorrect. 207.69.136.202

Silver City, New Mexico Territory, is correct. I have no idea how Silver Springs NV got in there. I'll fix it. Steve 00:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think my username needs work

Will try this for a while.

S B H arris 18:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this. Hmmmm. Too gay for me ...

S B H a r r i s

How about:

S B H arris

Lithium

I did not write the redirect part... only the two paragraphs below it. whoever edited it just didn't sign his name... no intention of redirecting anything

oops.. the above was from me --Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade 03:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I may actually have written it myself (embarrassment) when I was in the process of trying to fix these pages.

In any case, I'm not at all sure that you could get a pharmacological dose of lithium from any waters, and it's not absorbed through skin. So my guess is that the Roman treatment didn't work that way. Maybe nice soothing Roman hottub (hypocaust) treatments are good for depression. S B H arris 03:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teller-Ulam implosion stuff

I replied on my talk page; basically, can't be enough hydrogen mass in the hohlraum due to the relative densities of the materials, hydrogen is mostly transparent at the wavelengths involved, and the ablation pressure of the first high-Z material the X-ray flux reaches is ten times the maximum pressure you could see in a hydrocarbon (plastic) liner.

Lots of people are inclined to think it's a great idea, but applying the physics numerically gives results which indicate that the ablator must practically be a high-Z material. Georgewilliamherbert 07:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear fission

Hmmmm. I apparently wasn't clear, but I'm still not happy with the wording of that U-238 section. The wording is awkward and hard to follow, which is why I tried to reorder the sentences this morning. The physics I meant to communicate (that there is no danger of a chain reaction with U-238), but I apparently didn't succeed in being clear. The nuance I was trying to capture is that assemblies of U-238 cannot go critical at all, and are therefore inherently safer than assemblies of fissile isotopes -- but that one can get fission energy from such an assembly by bombarding it with fast neutrons. zowie 18:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet citation

Your reply:

Just because you personally haven't read about it, doesn't mean the whole world is so stupid as not to have noticed it or looked for it. In fact, both the nose section and tail section of the head-shot bullet were found in front seats of JFK's car. It fragmented, obviously, either during or after passage through his head. The middle section is broken up and scattered in many places, including some in the interior of the head, where fragments can be seen on X-ray.Steve 17:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(The italics are mine, by the way.)

My reply:

Then, if I may ask, why didn´t the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally break up? It was shot from the same gun at the same time. It went through two people, and through two chests, one leg, and one wrist, that contained bone. It ended up (almost intact) on a stretcher. This is puzzling, is it not?

Plus; if I haven´t read about it, it´s because nobody left a citation about it. I would really like one. Can you provide one? I would be grateful. It seems that "the whole world" knows about it, but I don´t. andreasegde 12:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a citation. The investigation commissioned by the Discovery Channel called Beyond the Magic Bullet recreated the JFK/Connally shooting to a finer degree than anyone has ever done. Basically they found that full-military jacketed 160 gr 6.5 mm bullets can be fired into solid blocks of wood with NO deformation. Ditto layers of animal skin (chammy skin was used, which mimics human) and ballistics gel. This type of bullet breaks up if it hits bone at high velocity (JFK's head), but not if it hits bone at low velocity traveling sideways. When they fired it through a block of gel/skin simulating a human neck, all the bullet did was slow and tumble, without deformation. In the space between JFK and Connally they got enough tumble to produce a keyhole, which was Connally's entrance wound. Bullets hitting skin/gel sideways slowed further until they were no longer deformed at hitting bone with the strength of a rib. by the time they had done this, they no longer broke up on impacting bone dead on, as with Connally's wrist. After THAT, they had just enough velocity to penetrate ballistic gel without deforming. This series was able to put one bullet (from a Carcano using the same lot of ammo, and at the same distance and height) through JFK and Connally gel/skin/bone mockups at the correct angle, reproducing all wounds, with only a slightly bent bullet which BOUNCED off the gel block representing Connally's thigh. But since the test bullet in tumbling broke two ribs instead of one, this was considered close enough to considerably substantiate the idea.S B H arris 15:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doc!

There is a Wikiproject that deals specifically with clinical medicine (WP:CLINMED). You're welcome to join or just browse the project, its talk page (aka the doctors' mess)-- or its guidelines on medical article writing (WP:CLINMED/Writing_medical_articles). It is a good place to call for re-inforcements/sober seconds opinions-- if you're editing an article and feel outnumbered by people that you feel are spouting nonsense.

If you have undeclared interests in nephrology or GI there are projects specifically for those things. As for your stated interests, I don't think there is a geriatrics project or respirology project yet, but you're welcome to start either or both... or more-- if you want to (only qualifications needed are interest and a bit of time). I look forward to more of your edits. Nephron T|C 21:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a complete wikiholic-- yet (based on the test). I can't imagine what it was like in the 1980s. I think it is cool when patients can teach you something. That said, the downside of the internet is-- there is oodles of misinformation... and as you're surely aware some of it creeps into Wikipedia. Nephron T|C 22:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought

I find, "Where do you suggest? He could have pre-organized a gateway into the 5th dimension, maybe?" to be extremely sarcastic and insulting. I despair... Please help editors to work together. andreasegde 16:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have made the same comment if you'd suggested that he'd found a way to hide the rifle in his shorts. This book depository building was destined for the most complete and thorough search for a weapon that any building in history of the US has ever undergone. Why do you really think that your suggestion that Oswald could have prepared a place to hide the weapon in the time he had (a few seconds), and which would survive that level of scrutiny, deserves anything but laughter? I'm laughing.S B H arris 17:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say this, but you´re doing it again. 1. He worked there. 2. He worked on every floor. He had days to arrange somewhere to hide it. Why did he not leave it by the window?

Comments like, "if you'd suggested that he'd found a way to hide the rifle in his shorts" are very comical, but not very useful. If you want to use funny one-liners to emphasise your wit (which would be extremely funny, if they were not on Wikipedia) then take to the stage and get paid for your work. I would pay to listen to you, because I love humour.

I know WP can be boring, but we have some serious problems with editors on the Kennedy page, and it would be wonderful if you could help to resolve them. Go on, smile, you know you want to... andreasegde 19:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I AM smiling. You have yet to make a serious comment here, so how can I do anything else? Tell me EXACTLY what you think he should have been able to do with the rifle in the time he had. Given that the route change in the motorcade to send it exactly past the building on Elm street, rather than down Main Street as originally planned, had only been made a few days before. Now be VERY specific, please. I'll take you seriously when you're serious.S B H arris 19:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to think that you have a fondness for "one-up-manship". Is that really true? I hope not.

Anyway; I think that maybe you did not read my comment thoroughly. He worked there and had days to plan where to hide the rifle. Why did he not leave it by the window if he only had 90 seconds? These are points that are interesting, but not conclusive, obviously.

Why put it by the window in plain sight? For the same time you have a chance to drop it behind some boxes where it might not be noticed for hours. That might buy you time. But there's no chance to hide a rifle anyplace it won't ever be found. Which is my point. Oswald did what he could in the time he had.S B H arris 06:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The route change is an urban myth. The limousine could not go down Main street and then turn off to the right, because there was a small concrete barrier there that prevented vehicles from doing such a thing. (It would have been dangerous to cross against traffic coming from the right on any normal day. That´s why they had the triple-underpass.) See this: [7] Let´s not fall out about this. andreasegde 05:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. The official version of the route considerably preceeded the various descriptions in Dallas newspapers, which had various routes, some wrong. A correct route was printed as early as Nov. 19, 3 days from zero, but Oswald still had to ask a coworker precisely which direction the motorcade would be coming from. I'll see you an urban myth and trade you one: it's actually an urban myth that a concrete divider prevented Main from getting to the Stemmon's freeway. It did before the underpass, but after it, eventually all 3 lanes merged, and the motorcade could have gotten onto the freeway by simply crossing Elm to the right and to the exit, AFTER the underpass. Yes, in ordinary circumstances that would have presented the problem of crossing Elm traffic. But not for the Motorcade, since all traffic had been blocked on Elm ANYWAY, so there was no merging traffic to deal with. Thus, Main all the way to freeway to TradeMart would have worked just fine, as officer Joe Marshall Smith testifies in WC VII pg. 539. They screwed up going the acute turn on Elm to solve a traffic problem they wouldn't have had, with Elm traffic halted as they had to do anyway. Duh. Yes, they blew it.S B H arris 06:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find (at the end of his testimony) that he said this:

Mr. LIEBELER. Is it possible that as you come down Main Street, if you stayed directly on Main Street going under the triple underpass, that you might have difficulty in making the turn with a big car from Main Street to go onto Stemmons Freeway?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. [8] andreasegde 07:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you might. But if you're going 10 mph as part of your personal MOTORCADE with cop escort and no traffic, then no.S B H arris 07:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with that, but look at how low the limousine was. It would have bumped over the the concrete (and quite possibly scraped the underside) and then bumped down onto the road to the freeway. A bit undignified for a president, don´t you think? andreasegde 17:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once AGAIN, there is NO concrete after the underpass, after which the three streets MERGE. MERGE means "no dividers". That happens BEFORE the freeway entrance. But yes, you do need to cross the lane that WAS Elm.S B H arris 18:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have no problem with that. I only suggest you read this:

(This is definitely against Jim Garrison’s idea that the route was changed):

“It made it clear that you have to turn on Houston and then Elm to get from Dallas' Main Street to the Stemmons Freeway. If you try driving down Main, you can get to the Stemmons only by driving over a concrete divider strip. That would be illegal, absurdly undignified for the presidential limo, and impossible for the press busses that were a part of the motorcade.” [9] and this: [10]

So it wasn´t a conspiracy to change the route... I hope we can agree to disagree. andreasegde 17:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elements articles

The guidelines are by no means set in stone and are open for imrovement of course, though could you coordinate with Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements to keep the article structures of the chemical elements consistent please? Femto 12:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've looked for the source of that blasted template, and have not been able to find it. This will help. S B H arris 16:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hillman/Dig

Hi, Steve, I think you'll be interested in this MfD. ---CH 00:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"This may not be the place to discuss the delete decision" (Mega Society and Mega Foundation) <-- May not? I doubt if you really had any doubt. --JWSchmidt 21:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this and that are what you were referring to. It can also be found with this link if you know the article name, or via the Special:Log and limiting the search to "Deletion Log". — MrDolomite | Talk 21:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I knew it didn't fit. On the other hand, now that the articles have been deleted, there's no good place for it anywhere. Who looks at the Talk pages of deleted articles? There ought to be a re-direct to them, at least.

The reasons given for deletion of these articles are appallingly bad, and apply just as well to other High IQ societies which are allowed to stay. Where does one draw the line? Obviously, when the society gets so small you know the people in it personally, and don't like some of them. Okay. But be honest about it, okay? I'm starting not to like them, either, but I still think that's no reason to vote down the Wiki. Peace. S B H arris 21:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review is the next step after WP:AfD. — MrDolomite | Talk 22:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Talk pages of deleted articles" <-- In my view, deletion of wiki pages is silly. If you need to, you can erase illegal content from wiki pages and even protect them from further editing, but once someone has created a wiki page, the associated talk page can always remain, and probably should remain with a good description of why the article was deleted. If you ever want a Wikipedia talk page to be re-created after it has been deleted, just let me know. As discussed here, the policy does not say that a talk page needs to be deleted when an article is deleted. --JWSchmidt 22:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bassett diasmbiguation

Hi! I see you've created a disambiguation page for Charles Bassett, however both listing link to the same page. Could you correct this or request deletion of the disambiguation page, please? Thanks. CPAScott 19:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doing better I think, but that article is sure to get zapped for speedy deletion without aditional content. A line or two that asserts why Bassett is significant or important is recommended. Best CPAScott

Well, that would be completely wrong. Stubs are not annoyances or things to be got rid of if you don't like them. They are the embryos, the stem-cells and buds of how Wikipedia grows. They are markers of interest for people who don't have time at the moment. Killing them is like destroying seeds, and misses the entire point. Astronaut Bassett's bio started out as 15 lines, and wouldn't even have had that, if somebody hadn't started with a government source. Many bios on historical figures here start with far less. Take a look at Texas Jack Vermillion for example.

As for why Charlie Bassett, lawman, is notable, you can do the google test yourself. He comes out at the top, not the astronaut. If you don't know a certain part of history, that's no reason to make people justify entries, who do. Look it up. We're all ignorant about most things, remember. And AGAIN, hold your horses. S B H arris 19:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Mega Society Judgement

Hi Steve, as you may have heard the Mega Society article was deleted awhile ago, at the end of an acrimonious AfD/DRV process. There is a wide divergence between deletion policy (as defined by various policy guideline documents) and deletion practice, as implemented by admins (who claim to be following the "spirit" of the law). Consequently there are lessons to be learnt from the experience, which will not be obvious from reading the guidelines. Here are some tips for future conduct:

Single purpose users are frowned upon and were a frequent bone of contention during the AfD and DRV processes. So I urge you all to "establish" yourself as Wikipedians: create, edit and even ... delete articles! There are plenty of articles that need attention.
It is a very good idea to put something on your user page, (it doesn't matter what) to avoid showing up as redlinked users -- being redlinked will count against you in any debate.
When voting, include brief reasons which are grounded in policy (votes not backed by reasoning may be discounted; too much reasoning will be ignored).

Given the bias against soliciting (see judgement) I may not be able to contact you again, so I suggest you put the Mega Society in your watchlists.

The closing admin's comments on the Mega Society:

Within the argumentation of the debate, the most significant point raised by those who supported the article was that a new draft was available. The article is not protected, so this may be posted at any time and (assuming it is not substantially similiar to the older version) it will be judged anew on its merits. This is good news for you.

The bad news for you is that it is well-established practice within Wikipedia to ignore completely floods of newer, obviously "single-issue POV", contributors at all our deletion fora. I'm among the most "process-wonkish" of Wikipedians, believe me, and even process-wonks accept that these sorts of voters are completely discountable. Wikipedia is not a pure democracy; though consensus matters, the opinion of newcomers unfamiliar with policy is given very little weight. Your vote, that of Tim Shell, and that wjhonson were not discounted. The others supporting your view were. I promise you that it is almost always true that, within Wikipedia, any argument supported by a flood of new users will lose, no matter how many of the new users make their voices known. In the digital age, where sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting are as easy as posting to any message board, this is as it should be for the sake of encyclopedic integrity. It is a firm practice within Wikipedia, and it is what every policy and guideline mean to imply, however vaguely they may be worded. (I do agree that our policies, written by laypeople mostly, could do with a once-over from an attorney such as myself; however, most laypeople hate lawyers, so efforts to tighten wording are typically met with dissent.)

If your supporters were more familiar with Wikipedia, they would realize that, invariably, the most effective way to establish an article after it has been deleted in a close AfD is to rewrite it: make it "~~faster~~, better, stronger." This is, in fact, what you claim to have done with your draft. Good show. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the outcome was not entirely negative, although I was disappointed by the admin's rather cavalier approach evidenced by the response to my enquiry:

.... why did you discount the votes of, say, User:GregorB or User:Canon? They are not new users, nor did I solicit them. I presume by Tim Shell you mean Tim Smith? ...... --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to which I received this rather off-hand reply:

User:GregorB offered a very brief comment not supported by policy. User:Canon did take the time to offer analysis at DRV, but he had been among the first voters at the AfD to offer a mere "Keep" without explanation; therefore, I assumed he had been solicited by someone. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

which didn't fill me with confidence about Wiki-"due process".

Anyway, my grumpiness aside, the Mega Society article, is presently under userfied open-development at User:MichaelCPrice/mega, and will reappear at some point, when (hopefully) some of the ill-feeling evidenced during the debate has cooled. I am very heartened by the article's continued development, and by the development of associated articles. Thanks for everyone's help!

--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oswald

"Since he had asked for a bus transfer, he intended to use the bus again. He may have been headed for another bus stop, as he walked about 1 mile toward the nearest bus stop, and was stopped about four blocks from it."

I am amazed that you put this in. It would never be allowed in any court of law, never mind WP. Its pure conjecture. Why? andreasegde 18:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what a bus transfer is? He also waited a while at the bus stop near his room. Do you think he was waiting for somebody to arrive, given the fact that he's just been on a slow bus and gotten off, getting a transfer? Come on. S B H arris 18:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not really matter what ticket he bought. Maybe he had other ideas, but not you, nor I, are allowed to make any suggestions about it. I know it´s frustrating, but we can not say what we think, or believe we know. Nobody knows what Oswald was thinking at the time. (I don´t even think that Oswald knew, but that´s my POV.) We have to state what we do know, (as a fact) and that´s all.

Plus: If you state your opinion as a supposed "fact", then all the "theorists" can do the same thing as you. It´s just going around in circles. The truth might be infinitely less interesting than any of us think. P.S. Clay Shaw was a casual informer for the CIA. So what? Not very interesting. andreasegde 18:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A hundred thousand foreign businessmen were casual informants for the CIA. The CIA is in the foreign intelligence buisiness. Information flows only one direction in such transactions, so indeed: So what?

If I ask for a bus pass and then later wait at a bus stop this is ordinary inferential evidence that I intend to take a bus. What is your problem with this? We judge people's intentions by their actions all the time-- in fact, actions speak louder than words in this regard. As the saying goes :). S B H arris 19:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Re your comment "That's revert #2 for me. I'm out and pass the ball.". You are allowed three reverts, not two. So stick with it a little longer? --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:RubyBranchesOut.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:RubyBranchesOut.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Infrogmation 04:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The kinetic energy of a gas molecule doesn't WEIGH anything.

Are you sure about that? --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Proof: Translate to a frame where the molecule is at rest, and kinetic energy is gone, poof. Kinetic energy is a property of systems, not things. You have to go to a system of 2 or more molecules to get kinetic energy which can't be made to go away by choice of frame. THAT energy is weighable. And that frame where it can be weighed as invariant mass, along with the rest energies of the particles themselves, is the COM frame. S B H arris 20:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-tensorial does not mean non-existent -- you'll be telling me relativiistic mass doesn't exist next. :-) --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience

Hi,

You may be interested in casting an eye over Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience and putting its talk page on your watch list. Activity is low, but this is where flare-ups about pseudoscienc articles get posted. Put your name on the "participants" list if you are interested. linas 01:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orthomolecular medicine

Your recent contributions to Wikipedia are very much appreciated. However, please take a moment to look over your contributions for spelling, grammatical, and punctuation errors before submitting them in final. This will help lessen the amount of copyediting work that fellow Wikipedians need to do, and will help improve the overall appearance of Wikipedia. This is not meant to be a disciplinary message, but merely a friendly request. Thank you!

-- Cri du canard 18:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you should know that I am referencing many of your orthomed discussions at Talk:Linus Pauling. I thought you did a great job with your discussions.--TheNautilus 03:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oswald

Please make sure to cite your sources when adding information to this article. Thanks. Ramsquire 21:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wups. And I see you've done it for me. Thanks. S B H arris 21:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protons & neutrons

err... thanks... *(I feel so stupid)* Tinlv7 18:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for that. Ignorance is not stupidity. We're all ignorant about most things.S B H arris 01:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section on gravitation

That section was about Intelligent Falling from the beginning; the anon was alluding to creation/evolution debates from the first words he wrote. You took the time to say rational things to someone who was trolling; that does not make the section useful. If you want to keep it, fine—but try not to feed trolls in the future. -- SCZenz 23:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it was NOT about Intelligent Falling from the beginning. God didn't enter in until the 3rd comment, which is when the IP address changes to Mr. Onion. I had no way of knowing this was the same guy, and still don't. You're making an assumption. For all I know the discussion was started by somebody who really doesn't understand the point of science, and was then hijacked. In any case, I've removed it all, since you're probably right. However, I reserve note that you're not OBVIOUSLY right. S B H arris 23:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a point; it's not 100% certain. I didn't realize they were different IP's. -- SCZenz 01:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

einstein's elevator vs. einstein's cabin

FYI: einstein's elevator vs. einstein's cabin. --Jtir 17:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Beesley

nominated for deletion. --Coroebus 16:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the deletion

While I was fixing the ref links, I deleted the celebrity morgue photo, because I thought it was a link to autopsy findings. Thanks for clarifying it's just a link to show Oswald's body. Unfortunately, when you are going over 52 cites, it's tough to do more than a cursory verification that sources are being used accurately. Ramsquire 19:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. Now, if you can just find a copy of the actual autopsy report or anything approximating it, that would be useful. I've not been able to find one. S B H arris 19:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Energy page

Thanks, for your cooperation, I feel much more comfortable now, perhaps togather we can help wikipedia develop a good article on energy. Charlie 03:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really cannot understand you, all of a sudden after several months, you decide to pop up and carry out unneccesary edits. For example, what prompted you to edit out the first paragraph. The article on energy does not belong solely to physics (or physical science) as is abundantly clear in its contents. It is about a concept in science, which includes biology, geology meterology just to count a few. If you are solely obssessed with physics, please control your impulses.Charlie 08:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent several months letting you and others sort out what you want to do with the energy article. Okay. However, it still needs lots of work. I did not write "physics," but "physical sciences," which of course are not the same thing, as you should very well know as a science writer, and (if not) as you'd discover if you merely read the wiki on physical sciences. The latter term is inclusive of physics and includes geology and meteorolgy. Apparently you didn't realize this. Also astronomy, chemistry, and other earth sciences like hydrology, oceanography, soil science, and so on. And planetary sciences, of course. The term doesn't include the social sciences or political sciences, but in this case we don't want it to. The one place where energy is used in "joules" but which isn't covered by "physical sciences" would be certain "life sciences". It would have been so nice if you'd just suggested adding that, instead of just misusing the English language, which is what you are here doing, not I. As for whether my edits are "necessary" or not, that is not up to you to judge. We've been over that. If you insist on misusing or misunderstanding common English, making reflexive edits, and then following them with insulting comments on other editors' TALK pages, you're going to get yourself into trouble on Wikipedia. So this is another warning. This is your LAST warning from me. Stop it. S B H arris 23:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really fail to understand you, and your authority on the wikipedia. Do you own wikipedia that you can go around doing random edits and issuing last warnings to other serious editors. Are you an admin a trusty of wikipedia, you act in ways as if wikipedia is your propreity. If this is really true, I am really sorry that I ever contributed and wasted my efforts here. I will surely communicate my feeling to people who are legitimately the trustees of wikipedia. We can settle our differences in a wider and more legitimate forum rather than fighting between us two. Charlie 04:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to take your reflexive reverting style (and this case) to ArbCom. You'll lose. S B H arris 14:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning users (from Femto's RfA)

If you don't warn users appropriately, how on earth can you block them when they have a reached a point when they can be blocked for vandalism? I know there are lots of admins who will not break rules and will say "IP only has a t3" and they decide not to block. On the other hand, there are admins like myself who will ignore rules in special occasions just in order to stop an IP vandal. You are also strongly mistaken about IP vandals. Most of them respond violently when they return from blocks, and they start targetting individual users (I have been a victim many times, which is why I had to semi-protect my userpage). Some IP users actually do heed to warnings on their talk page, and do stop vandalizing. There are some that don't. Also, do you think IP's always are blocked for a few hours? Some persistent IP vandals have been blocked for weeks, months and some more than a year. It may not be indefinite, but what gives you the idea that they can't have an effect on the actual user(s) under that IP address. Regardless, I think warning users is an effective procedure. Nishkid 64 23:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you go to WP:ABUSE you can see a full range of open IP vandal cases and what has triggered them, including enough statistics that should convince anybody that current policy here is just not working. I believe the champ is an IP in Australia which has been blocked/warned 141 times, with an average block length of 10 days, but one up to 6 months. Wasted time, all of it. S B H arris 00:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RPJ

I've initiated an RfC on RPJ here. Please feel free to make any additional comments. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 01:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Mediation is currently having a severe backlog, I took the case to the Mediation Cabal.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notice that I have filed a request for arbitration concerning RPJ. Feel free to add any comments you feel are necessary. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking

Hello; about the links, repeating the links is definitely okay if it has been a while since the last time the word was used, but repeating links every paragraph or so is not necessary especially if every paragraph is discussing those same subjects. There isn't a reason to repeat a link in, for example, the second and fifth paragraphs of a section, especially if one would need to read the second paragraph of the section anyway to understand paragraphs which follow (and if this isn't true, the section should probably be split into two). Personally, I think that there should be no repeats within a section, and no more than two per screen if the sections are very short. The section about this in the Manual of Style is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking, but it's somewhat vague.

Keep in mind that "a page" can be different depending on your display resolution - you might see only one link per page while I (working on 1280x1024) might see twenty on a screen. Most people seem to use something close to 1024x768.

Also, "relativistic mass" redirects back to the exact same article, so I removed all the links to it. (By the way, please remember to tell me the article you are talking about; it took a while to figure out you were talking about mass in special relativity.) —AySz88 \^-^ 00:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your statement in this case. I believe the key is lack of reliable sources for conspiracy theories. There is a measure of circular reasoning involved, but the essence of the matter is that there is a systematic disconnect between invalid conspiracy theories and data, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RPJ/Workshop#Verifiability.2C_not_truth. Fred Bauder 15:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poof

Not quite - it's done on a case by case basis, done rather rarely, and not everything is entirely removed. Anything else I can help with? --HappyCamper 03:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical bonding

Hi i see that you have taken an interest in chemical bond. Basically, most of the articles on bonding are real crappy, they appear to be authored by well-intentioned folk that aced gen chem. So please feel free to be unusually bold.--Smokefoot 02:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Nose Kate

Hi. You seem to have done a lot of work on this article in the past. Any chance you can explain her nickname in the article? --Dweller 15:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for response. I'm sure other people must be puzzled too! --Dweller 19:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

RPJ is banned from Wikipedia for one year.
RPJ is placed on indefinite probation. He may be banned from the site for an appropriate period by any administrator if he edits in a disruptive manner.
Edits by anonymous ips or alternative accounts which mirror RPJ's editing behavior are subject to the remedies applied to RPJ. Blocks and bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RPJ#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 05:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.