User talk:Ssscienccce

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Deleted Ref Desk Contribution[edit]

Just letting you know that Baseball Bugs has deleted one of your contributions. It is being discussed on the Talk Page. Buddy431 (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It didn't contribute much, I have to admit. Ssscienccce ( (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo
Hello! Ssscienccce, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Sarah (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Paul Cohen[edit]

Maybe this helps:
In 1961 Cohen was appointed to the faculty at Stanford University as an assistant professor of mathematics. He was promoted to associate professor in mathematics in the following year and, also in 1962, was awarded an Alfred P Sloan research fellowship. In August 1962 Cohen participated in the International Congress of Mathematicians in Stockholm. He was an invited speaker giving the address Idempotent measures and homomorphisms of group algebras. On a cruise from Stockholm to Leningrad, following the Congress, Cohen met Christina Karls from Malung, Sweden. They married on 10 October 1963 and had three sons, twins Eric and Steven, and Charles.
He was promoted to full professor at Stanford University in 1964 having, by this time, solved one of the most challenging open problems in mathematics. Cohen used a technique called "forcing" to prove the independence in set theory of the axiom of choice and of the generalised continuum hypothesis. Angus MacIntyre writes [13]:-
A dramatic aspect of the continuum hypothesis work is that Cohen was a self-taught outsider in logic. His work on set theory and p-adic fields has a very characteristic style, combinatorial and rather free of general theory.
Cohen spoke about his work on the independence of the axiom of choice and the continuum hypothesis from the axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory in a lecture Independence results in set theory delivered at the international symposium on the 'Theory of Models' at Berkeley on 4 July 1963. His proof appeared in the two papers The independence of the continuum hypothesis (1963) and The independence of the continuum hypothesis. II (1964).
In 1966 Cohen published the monograph Set theory and the continuum hypothesis based on a course he gave at Harvard in spring 1965. Azriel Lévy (who first heard Cohen's results at the Berkeley model theory conference) writes:- This monograph is mostly an exposition of the celebrated results of the author, namely the independence of the continuum hypothesis and the axiom of choice. In addition it presents also the main classical results in logic and set theory. ... This book presents a fresh and intuitive approach and it gives some glimpses into the mental process that led the author to his discoveries. The reader will find in this book just the right amount of philosophical remarks for a mathematical monograph. (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced content[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to List of emoticons, without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.--Otterathome (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Neither the history of that page nor the list of my contributions shows any edit of that article made by me. Ssscienccce (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
It was List of emoticons, fixed.--Otterathome (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
And what is supposed to be a WP:RS for emoticons? if I remember correctly, it was the table throwing icon and one other. Lot's of sites that have it, but none I would consider a reliable source, and frankly, I would hope that "reliable" sources would not waste their time on something as frivolous as emoticons. The fact that Microsoft includes an automatic conversion to emoticons in one of its programs is the reference for most of the emoticons in that article, simply because they are present in the list that MS uses. Is that a reliable source for the widespread usage of them??? I also seem to remember that you were searching all articles that used one particular site as a reference, and deleting the information that carried that ref. not taking the trouble to look for another source, not considering whether the information was likely to be challenged... that was my main reason for reverting your edit; Frankly, I take the WP:RS rules a bit more serious in an article on the dropping of the abomb on Hiroshima than in a list of commonly used emoticons. Ssscienccce (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:RS applies to all articles equally.--Otterathome (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
The 2nd point in the lead of WP:RS is "Context matters". kym is inappropriate for most uses, and potentially appropriate for other uses (such as, supporting the existence of a widespread but otherwise unremarkedupon-in-RSs emoticon). —Quiddity (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Is the substitution of uw-.. templates logged somewhere? Or the use of Twinkle or other tools? I've looked everywhere, but I can't figure out how you came across this discussion. recent changes might do it, I guess... Or one of the monitoring tools? Mysterious.. (-_-)ゞ゛ Ssscienccce (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Easy! I'm the one who originally added those entries, and I was checking the contribs of the editors who were removing/replacing it! ʕ•̫͡•ʔ (ó㉨ò) (͡๏̯͡๏) —Quiddity (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Health effects of tobacco ‎[edit]

Having read this, this evening, I have revised the paragraph. What is your verdict?
Sincerely –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 18:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble! It's not really the article I had a problem with, it's that paper that really bugs me. I don't have a medical degree, so I could be wrong of course, but to me it looks like a superficially reasonable theory that is so far removed from reality you can't even find studies to disprove it. It starts off like a normal technical paper on the distribution of airborne radionuclides as a function of various parameters like particulate matter concentrations etc. No problem with that, but then it starts theorizing about the distribution of inhaled particles in the lungs, the amount of time these stay there, the amount of damage they do, and how this would explain lung cancer in smokers. There's no medical evidence to back it up, well, the correlation between smoking, radon and cancer is there, but nothing on the distribution or prevalence of these radon daughters (the progeny in the decay chain of 222Rn) in actual people. For a physicist with no medical training, publishing a paper that pretty much states, this is the mechanism that causes lung cancer in smokers, seems a bit over-confident.
So far I haven't found a study that contradicts or confirms his assumptions on the distribution of these radionuclides. One thing however is easy to refute: his assumption that the radon daughters attached to smoke and dust particles are the dangerous ones. All other publications on radon say the exact opposite:
"While most of the progeny attach to aerosols immediately after formation, a variable proportion remain unattached and are referred to as the unattached fraction. The fraction of unattached radon progeny in inhaled air is an important determinant of the dose received by target cells at a particular concentration in inhaled air; as the unattached fraction increases, the dose also increases because of the efficient deposition of the unattached progeny in the larger airways." (source: RADON EXPOSURE AND LUNG CANCER RISK Department of Medicine and the New Mexico Tumor Registry, Cancer Center University of New Mexico School of Medicine Albuquerque, New Mexico 1988)
There are better sources, from international organizations, but my hard-drive is pretty unorganized, so I picked the first I found.
In other words, when it comes to radon, aerosols (dust and smoke particles) reduce exposure to the unattached progeny. But his study doesn't consider unattached progeny, he dismisses them right away, saying they are rapidly removed from the air by sticking to the walls. His justification for this is an older paper, where the "room" was the size of a shoe box and the air flow turbulent. Of course a charged particle would quickly end up on the wall, but real people don't live in shoe boxes.
Would his theory fit with epidemiological data? Very doubtful. Based on available data, "it's assumed that the combined effect of smoking and radon exposure act in a combined fashion that is close to multiplicative". (from New Mexico study). Best data available is on uranium miners. Almost multiplicative effects are seen, and that includes cases where miners started smoking after or quit smoking before they were miners. His theory not only requires that these periods overlap, it even requires the two to occur at the same moment, ie smoking inside the mine! How likely is that?
So there's my frustration, a paper that's quoted from time to time, that I believe to be completely without foundation, but for which I cannot find a single review. I'm a bit obsessive about such things, and this one has been on my list too long!
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ 
Thank you for the changes, the wording is fine, but don't spend your time on that section, because once I find what I'm looking for, I'll be back! 😎 Ssscienccce (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Ssscienccce![edit]

Gun safety ‎[edit]

Hello Ssscienccce,

I am seeking your advice on how best to address my concerns about the Gun Safety article (see Although the article is entitled “Gun Safety”, the content is restricted to safe handling of firearms and prevention of un-intentional firearms injuries. I have attempted to correct this shortcoming by adding the following sentences immediately after the restrictive definition of “gun safety”:

The phrase "gun safety" is now frequently used to refer to measures that go beyond the prevention of unintentional injury. This includes efforts to reduce gun ownership by persons not prepared to assure safe use of guns and policies aimed to reduce firearms homicides and suicides.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Please refer to the wikipedia article on Gun Politics for further discussion of this broader concept of gun safety.

A couple of editors have deleted this additional language, insisting that the initial sentence of the article (” For discussions on politics concerning firearms and gun safety, see Gun politics.”) deals adequately with the concern I have raised. On the Talk page for the article (see the section entitled “The Scope of Gun Safety”) you will find a summary of my arguments and references as well as the responses of the editors.

In brief, I believe that as currently written the “Gun Safety” article does not meet Wikipedia’s NPOV standards: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

The editors resist inclusion of any language that acknowledges a currently common, broader understanding of the concept of “Gun Safety”.

What would you advise?

Groetjes, Bob Pond (talk) 05:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

As of this update, the "Gun Safety" article has been modified to address my concerns. If you have time to consider the issue, please take a look at the latest comments in the section on "The scope of gun safety" section of the articles Talk page. Thanks and prettig keerstfeest, Bob Pond (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Bob,
I haven't had time to look at the issue in detail yet, seems to be mainly a question of what is considered the most common usage of the term. As a dutch speaking Belgian I'm maybe not the best one to judge on that.
As to the amount of information that should be included when a link to another article is provided, that would be a wikipedia policy or best practices question, past discussions and decisions in WP:RFC, WP:DRN and WP:RFAR could be relevant.
It's not an area I'm very familiar with, I tend to focus mainly on science facts and the relaibility of specific sources. I will take a closer look when time permits, but for more input from third parties you might also consider one of the notice boards (like Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Third opinion or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard), perhaps the wp:reference desk, or one of the long list of other resources these pages invariably offer. Frankly, there are so many projects, noticeboards, help pages, policy pages etc.. it's hard to find what you need sometimes.
One piece of advice, don't get too focused on one article or issue. Can get frustrating, especially when there's considerable opposition. I closed my previous account and hardly visited wikipedia for two years after fighting against what I felt was the "hijacking" of articles by some editors and wikiprojects. Now I just stay away from such articles. Ssscienccce (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

John Calvin FA status[edit]

Recently you commented on an article, saying it didn't seem to warrant FA status as it seemed to have been written by a Calvin fan. Please comment on a suggestion for changing one of the subheadings: Markewilliams (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Manometery equation[edit]

Hey there. Last week you contributed to the discussion at the now archived "Manometery equation" science reference desk question. I thought that you might be interested in knowing where the mystery 800 came from. It turns out that the question had been misstated, and the relative density of the fluid was 0.8, not 13.6. -- ToE 19:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. :-) Ssscienccce (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Radioactive.svg Isotope Expert
Thanks for alerting me about the mistakes I introduced into Template:Actinides vs fission products; they're now corrected. -- Limulus (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Ballpoint pen in space[edit]

Thanks for your input about normal ballpoints in zero gravity. That's notable and surely should be worked into the ballpoint pen article. Seems like a reliable source as well, YES? I'd be happy to put that on my list of things-to-do unless you'd like to run with it yourself, in which case I'll just keep an eye on the edit and clean up afterwards if necessary? I may not be able to get to it myself until we pass into the new year. I'd also like some wikipedic consensus on source reliability, BUT: as far as I'm concerned, you can't get any better than astronaut reports from outer space! Get back to me at your convenience and I'll make a point of working on it. I monitor that page because the existing version is basically mine (using most of what already existed there), and it ties into other ballpoint-related articles I authored (ballpoint pen artwork and some of those ballpoint artists). Penwatchdog (talk) 12:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation[edit]

There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)