User talk:OMCV

NOTE: I know some people carry on conversations across two User talk pages. I find this ludicrous and unintuitive, and would much prefer to follow Wikipedia's recommendations (see How to keep a two-way conversation readable). Conversations started here will be continued here, while those I start on other users' pages will be continued there. If a user replies to a post of mine on this page, I will either cut/paste the text to their page, or (more likely) copy/paste from their page to this one and continue it here.

We can't respond!

Regarding the CF talk page, you wondered, "what CF proponents like Jed and PCarbonne will think of it." Neither of us are allowed to respond. PCarbonne has been banned for a year, and someone keeps erasing my comments.

I hope they do not track down and erase this one.

Here are some of my deleted comments:

"If you are going to discuss 'Experimental Failures' perhaps you might also mention 'Experimental Successes' and widespread replications. Just a thought.

I do not think that "Energy Comes in Bursts" is correct. It does sometimes, of course, but not always. The word "burst" is sometimes used in the literature to describe continuous high powered energy production, but it sometimes continues for long periods in stable output, so I think the term is confusing and should be avoided. "Skeptics" have sometimes asserted that bursts are always short and might be explained by endothermic chemical heat storage between bursts, but this is incorrect. Many "bursts" are far too large to be chemical, and there are no endothermic storage events. If there were, they would be even larger than the exothermic events following, because they would be shorter, and thus they would be readily observable, and also in violation of the known laws of chemistry. . . ."

- Jed Rothwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.255.197 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Jed is free to respond if he stays on the topic of improving the page, and that forms a significant part of his response. This would be helped if he got an account so that messages for him and discussions not related to improving the article could be placed there. A {{notaforum}} tag has been added to the page and I have explained this on the IP talk page, which Jed has blanked. PCarbonne has been banned by the arbcom, a link to the case is at the top of the cold fusion talk page. Verbal chat 15:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not mean the question about PCarbonne as an insult, I didn't yet know that he had been banned. I won't pretend not to approve of the decision. I think now might be the time to make the CF something more than a battlefield. There needs to be some way to state the situation that satisfies both sides. I think the suggested outline might help with this by compartmentalizing We both want to represent the truth. I saw your response to my question before it was deleted. I think its important to remember that Wikipedia is not the place to peer-review anything. Wikipedia can't even claim to be about the truth, its about reporting verified material with as much of a NPOV as we can muster. I implore you to get an account and learn the conventions of Wikipedia so that you can participate in editing CF constructively. You might actually want to try editing some other things to learn the protocols. You must have hobbies or other things you are knowledgeable about. I've worked on the laboratory glassware, climbing equipment, and other things to get comfortable with the whole system. Good luck with everything.--OMCV (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I Just wanted to thank you for the way you responded to my last post here. V (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I never got back to you but as I said before, WP isn't the place for peer-review. I pointed out that alloying is chemical bonding because it was something I knew about. The way you had stated that part of your assertion was obviously wrong; this makes me question the value of the assertions I know less about. I really have not interest in discussing your theory, hypothesis, or whatever you wish to call it any further. I think its important for you to learn what OR is and the significance of significance as explained in WP:Verify if you keep working on WP.--OMCV (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Rock climbing edits

Hey there. Do you have a source for any of your additions to the rock climbing article, or was that entirely original research / your own knowledge? Tan | 39 00:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll put a ref in for Mountaineering: The Freedom of the Hills and maybe some other books. As it was it was just wrong.--OMCV (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I totally agree. I'm a climber myself; moved out west from MI specifically to be closer to the good stuff. Thanks for throwing in a reference or two. Tan | 39 02:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool, at some point someone should get around to fixing Climbing styles which doesn't look good, in formating terms at the very least.--OMCV (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Rock climbing: Lead vs Free

Hi OMCV,

First, thanks for your numerous edits and general cleanup of the rock climbing pages. They've been needing that for a while.

I have a question about your usage of the terms "free climbing" vs "lead climbing". I was taught to believe that free climbing is the opposite of aid climbing, not a synonym for leading. I believe -- though I'd have to check to be sure -- that several climbing books reflect this usage. Before I go to the books to find out, could I ask what your sources were? I'd like to figure out whether this a regional difference, a universal ambiguity, or just a simple mistake on my part.

Thanks! -Clueless (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that "free climbing" involves placing gear solely as a precaution. In contrast in "aid climbing" gear is placed in order to advance. According the intro of chapter 11 in the 6th edition of Freedom of the Hills lead climbing is and aspect of "free climbing" and "aid climbing" but can also be an aspect of "non-technical scrambling". After all "aiding" definitely involves leading. I would say leading is an aspect of all partnered climbing except top roping. I expect that you would be able to find "free" and "leading" treated as synonyms, I'm not sure if its a regional issue or an especially prevalent misconception similar to "free climbing" vs "free soloing" or "bouldering" vs "scrabbling". Actually Freedom of the Hills might add to the problem since the chapters on "rock climbing" are 9. Rock-Climbing Technique 10. Rock Protection 11. Leading on Rock 12. Aid Climbing. Chapters 9-11 apply to "free climbing" while chapters 10-12 apply to "aid climbing". This just shows the overlap in technique between the two styles. I think it would be best if WP used terms in the same way as Freedom of the Hills, its a pretty solid reference. I didn't mean any offense with my comments am happy to help in any way possible.--OMCV (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I stumbled on this discussion the other day and it is now on my watch list. I am concerned that the book you use might be a US POV. I think you should take this discussion to somewhere like Talk:Climbing where you might get a more international set of viewpoints. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point Bduke. I'm happy to see another chemist interested in climbing jargon. However, I really don't think this is like our (Americans) inane predilection towards keeping kcal rather than moving to the more reasonable units of kJ. I'll be interested to see what if any documentation (or reports of oral tradition) there is for "free" = "lead". It should be noted that both Clueless and I are from the US so this specific situation is not yet an international affair. I'm going to move this to the rock climbing talk page since climbing seems a bit general.--OMCV (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

big science

I find it does not help to insult the opposition--even though your comment was certainly understandable. simply treat them as people who have not yet been enlightened, and at least try to pretend they are willing to be educated.  :) DGG (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. The way WP functions at times can be frustrating; I do however appreciate the system. Thanks for the reminder.--OMCV (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Castleton Tower

Thanks. Nice place, nice photos, nice article. I'd never be able to climb it, but I'd like to sit around in the sun contemplating it. A bit chilly and dark in the wee small hours of London :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Misc.

Thanks for your concern, but I'm fine. :) StonerDude420 (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I was requesting information from you, not asking you how you are feeling. Please be kind enough to respond to the content of my message.--OMCV (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I had edited some other controversial articles without signing up, before finally deciding it was worthwhile to do that. My biggest problem here is OR not POV. V (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

What does Topic outline of Big Science need?

Hi.

In its deletion discussion, you !voted to merge Topic outline of Big Science with the article Big Science (which has also been nominated for deletion, by the way).

The Topic outline of Big Science is a member of a set of outlines that together make up Wikipedia's outline of knowledge, one of Wikipedia's contents subsystems. These outlines used to be called "Lists of basic topics".

Merging the page into an article will remove it from Wikipedia's outline of knowledge.

I'm in the process of fixing the Topic outline of Big Science, but in order to address your concerns, I need to know what your concerns are...

Why do you feel the page should be removed from Wikipedia's outline of knowledge, and what needs to be done to it in order for it to remain a part of it?

What do I need to do to fix it?

Would you mind returning to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topic outline of Big Science and explaining your reasons? That would sure help.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    01:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Fifty Classic Climbs

Hey, I just got my own copy of c and thought I'd pitch in on some of the articles you're creating. I made a citation template for the book: {{Fifty Classic Climbs}} -- just give it the page numbers and you're good to go. Another good source is the AAJ, since they've put all their archives online [1]. Hope to see more route articles! Cheers, Jfire (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That looks great. I'll have to futs with it to figure out how it works. To be honest I've never seen a copy of the Fifty Classic Climbs, I've just seen it referenced in many guide books and discussed in climbers autobiographies. I'm just using the guide books to flesh out the routes I know are on the list. You've inspired me into ordering a copy for myself. Thanks for the support.--OMCV (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Your template works well. In other news I went to buy a copy of Fifty Classic Climbs and cheapest I could find was 80 bucks and up on Amazon. I'm going to keep looking for a cheaper copy. I won't be adding much for a while, good luck with whatever you work on. One other thing, could you confirm the Sierra Club cover to the Fifty Classic Climbs features the Kor-Ingalls Route (Castleton Tower) so we could add the image to that page.--OMCV (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, out of print guidebooks can be surprisingly expensive. I've seen climbers resort to xerox bootlegging in some cases. I paid about $30 for a used paperback of FCC on Amazon. Wait a bit and see if the price comes down again. The copy I have has this cover, which is from the East Buttress of Middle Cathedral, captioned on p. 249: "Dick Long moves up the bolt ladder low on the route. Lower Cathedral Spire dominates the background." Photo credit to Allen Steck. (Incidentally, you will have to upload the covers to Wikipedia rather than Commons -- covers are accepted as fair use here but commons doesn't accept any non-free content. And fair use for book covers only applies to the article on the book itself I believe; it wouldn't be allowed on either Kor-Ingalls Route (Castleton Tower) or East Buttress (Middle Cathedral Rock).)

BTW, I believe you were correct with the Lost Arrow Spire route -- the description of the route in FCC matches up with what's now called Lost Arrow Spire Tip. I don't know if there's any other route on the spire -- perhaps we should cover both the formation and route at Lost Arrow Spire. Jfire (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice on the covers. I'll shift them to WP tonight. Based on the Yosemite Big Walls supertopo book it looks like the Lost Arrow Spire route was originally the Arrow Chimney which ends with the Arrow Tip but climbs the start there rather then rappelling in to get there. I don't have a book that covers this area. You have the official Fifty Classic Climbs let me know if that sounds right and redirect things as they need to be. Have a good one.--OMCV (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Lost Arrow Spire Chimney

Yes, the place does need to be in the main 'prose' section of the article, otherwise it means nothing to people who don't know or have never visited the place in question, and lacks context. Peter Robinson Scott (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused; the state, country, coordinates, and local area are all specified in the "info" box. Its seems that might mean something to people. Including the information in the "prose" and the "info box" seems redundant and I find it exceedingly annoying when that is done on "biography" articles. Could you link to a short article of similar content (doesn't have to be about climbing) as an example of what you think is good form.--OMCV (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the template if you like. I just thought it'd be useful to people like me who don't do climbing and don't know where "Lost Arrow Spire Chimney" is. I'm sure you can appreciate how it could mean any number of places throughout the world! Peter Robinson Scott (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Spin states

Nice work! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. I'm sure it needs work, but its a start.--OMCV (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ligand field theory

Hi there. I noticed your brief conversation with User:Gerloch on the LFT user page. I don't know if you know who this man is (assuming his username is not spurious), but he spent his whole career as an inorganic theoretician working with LFT and TM MO theory (type him into Google), and he knows his onions. The reason that I know who he is is because he lectured me whilst I was an undergraduate; I think it fair to say that whilst he's a very clever man, his gift was not necessarily in communicating his work to mere mortals. This is just a heads-up; see if you can get him onside, because he would undoubtedly have a lot to give, especially if filtered through those of us that speak a language that non theoreticians can understand. Chris (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

PS: Who are you? It looks like our research interests are not dissimilar. I too do a fair bit of non-aqueous electrochem, synthesis, EPR etc.

Thanks for the heads up I really appreciate it. Its funny how that sort of thing happens. You never know who you're going to run into on here. The only thing I would have done different is write the same ideas with a little more respect. I'll fix what I wrote if he hasn't responded. I hate to say it but I protect my anonymity on here for a few reasons because, a) I'm likely to sound off to a senior chemists without realizing it. b) I don't have tenure. c) I'll make an idiot myself by debating with idiots on stuff like cold fusion and water fuel cells. d) I don't want the cranks I've argued with on cold fusion and water fuel cells knowing who I am. e) I will edit things I would want attached to my name professionally.--OMCV (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Electrolysis

I was inspired by your contribution on the talk page of electrolysis of water to add "Electrolysis of aqueous solutions" to the electrolysis article- as your write up was the only explanation in wikipedia for what is one of the most common questions by students. I hope you can improve my effort. Regards --Axiosaurus (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good but it seems like it might need a different name to distinguish it from the next section. I'll think about it and see if I have anything to add to the section when I have some time.--OMCV (talk) 12:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if you think the new titles all right. I'm so glad my post got read and inspired something of value, nice work. I made a few other minor changes and I think it looks good. The whole electrolysis is going to need a once over one of these days to clean it up.--OMCV (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Electrocatalyst

Can you add an ISBN for that book?

--  Chzz  ►  01:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if it looks right now and I'll propagate the reference to other articles that include the bard and faulkner reference.--OMCV (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've improved on the ref, hopefully.

--  Chzz  ►  01:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks as I go to related pages I'll update the reference.--OMCV (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've just had a go at improving the article - I am in no way knowledgable about the topic, so I hope you won't be offended - WP:BOLD and all that.

Your new article piqued my curiosity, so I did some readong around the subject. I wanted to make the article a bit clearer to the layman, but I've tried to keep everything you'd writte - just somewhat re-ordered.

I know that, at the moment, the section on ethanol is a bit out on its own, instead of the section you had on 'applications', but hydrogen cells were quite well covered in the rest...anyway, of course it can be expanded.

The only bit I did remove was this;

Each half-cell of an electrochemical cell requires an electrocatalys specific to its half-reaction.

because I couldn't decide where it should fit - I don't really understand it, to be honest.

I won't be at all offended if you revert some or all of my changes - I just hope it gives some dieas for how to improve the article. There's a couple more refs in there that I found useful myself.

Cheers,

--  Chzz  ►  03:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It looked pretty good overall but I ended up changing a lot of it to make sure the language and concept weren't fudged. Specifically the information based off the quick time is questionable, its the same way I would describe electrocatalyst in casual conversation; but the clip also uses various terms too casually for our purposes. The distinction between combustion and electrochemical (redox) reactions needs to be more clearly delineated in an encyclopedia. I tried to do that without making it to complex or long. You did a good job showing where I made things too complex and jagoney before, take a look at it now and see if you can't help it some more in its current form. Thanks for finding all the great references.--OMCV (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite pleased; I think it's been a really good team effort. I will certainly look at it again when I get the chance - maybe try to simplify a bit without detracting, always a very tricky balance. But it's certainly better for our combined editing.

You'll notice I found us a pretty picture. I emailed the lab for permission. Hope you approve.

Cheers, --  Chzz  ►  04:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad it worked out and the picture is great.--OMCV (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

cold fusion paper

Ooooh, I want to see the offending paper too :) E-mail me a copy, please, I've been arguing with Abd about it, so I'm interested on it. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

E-mail me something through Wikipedia and I'll reply with a non-standard e-mail address.--OMCV (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I got a copy, too, thanks. Enric, don't you think it would have been a little safer to argue after seeing the paper? Ah, well, no accounting for taste.--Abd (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Cold fusion mediation

I have been asked to mediate the content dispute regarding Cold fusion. I have set up a separate page for this mediation here. You have been identified as one of the involved parties. Please read through the material I have presented there. Thank you. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Response

I've responded to your latest comment. Thanks. Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dude

Please don't edit the article. You don't understand quantum mechanics well enough. I am sorry for violating Wikipedia rules (I honestly didn't notice), but if you get rid of the text, you will be doing the encyclopedia a disservice. This article was in a shambles before I wrote that text, with warring editors on both sides. It was a good compromise, and it is well cited. Please read the sources I gave you, and learn about quantum mechanics.Likebox (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I am sure you are acting in good faith, and I am sorry for reverting you. I only did it so as to get you to respond. Sometimes people won't respond if the text of tha article is unchanged. I don't mind if you keep reverting, but please don't get too pissed off. I was not acting in bad faith--- I sincerely want to compromise. Your text wasn't awful, and I might have some irrational attachement to the previous text, because it was a war to get it in in the first place.

That article was a bitch to write and a bitch to source, and each section has different sources. The mind/body in classical mechanics was sourced from the philosophy literature (following Dennett and Hofstadter), while the physics stuff was sourced from a collection of texts starting with Wigner and including a little bit of the Cini text on Quantum Mechanics without collapse. It is difficult because all physicists are aware of the issue with measurements, but they don't necessarily see it as mystical.Likebox (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi again--- it isn't a personal attack to say that your QM is not strong--- you can learn it perfectly well. I am just asking you to please read the sources and learn more about QM before getting heavy into editing this article, because these issues are subtle. It was hard to write this in a way that is comprehensible, and I fear that by making the philosophy murkier, you make the article harder to understand.

If you have in mind a point of view that QM is just classical mechanics with probability thrown in, then it is a little silly to call that mystical. But that's not what QM is. QM describes nature by a wavefunction. That means that the notion of "probability" is modified to "probability amplitude", which is a new concept without prior precedent. But we still experience the world as classical, plus classical probability, we never see probability amplitudes. Many physicists then make an appeal to the nature of consciousness to explain why that is--- and some people view that as mysticism.Likebox (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

About "Citing a whole book" please look at it: the book contains a lot of articles that discuss thought experiments like the copying of an observer. The articles are very long-winded, because they are written to convince a skeptic, but you can just skim them (although they are pleasant to read). The original article is (I think--- I haven't read this in years) "where am I" by Dennett, and "Who am I?" (a sequel). I think they are both reprinted there, with extra commentary. The many-worlds article by Hofstadter is reprinted in "Metamagical Themas" (I am pretty sure). I didn't cite a particular page, because the thought experiment I wrote about is a very condensed summary of "Where am I". That is written as a fable about someone whose consciousness is copied into circuits (if my memory serves me right). I really don't mind if you change stuff here, but please read this literature first. Dennett is a very non-mystical philosopher of consciousness.Likebox (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)