User talk:Rcq

Hi, if you have a problem with me, please discuss it in a civil manner and I will be happy to try to help. Please do not resort to personal attacks. Gw e rnol 01:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I remember now. You were trying to add an article called The Certainty Principle which ended up being deleted as original research. If you believe the article was impropoerly deleted, you can ask for a review at deletion review. That gives you an opportunity to make your case to have the article reinstated. If you believe I acted improperly, you can go to Request for Comment and open a User-Conduct RfC. Again this will start a peer review process at which you can make your case about my conduct. Finally, if you believe that Wikipedia's original research policy itself is flawed, you can work to gain consensus with other editors at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research for a change. Best, Gw e rnol 01:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my talk page. I've removed the image again, as I find it offensive and I think that's your intention, particularly considering your descriptions of it such as: "This Uncertain Elephant should be used to award people who defend WP from the influence of original research too seriously."

To answer your questions:

1. Thanks for clearing up that you are not Slicky. Sorry for the confusion.

3. I don't know what you mean by formalist. If you mean I think Wikipedia is only valuable if it has limits on what may be contained here, then you are correct. I don't consider this being "too serious".

5. The certainty principle does not have an article in Wikipedia. You can see an archive of the discussion about whether it should be deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Certainty_Principle. As you can see from the discussion I did not express an opinion about whether it should be deleted or not, but the unanimous opinion of the community was it was not appropriate for Wikipedia.

Best, Gw e rnol 03:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What prompted you to give me the uncertain elephant award? A rather belated reaction to me supporting deletion of the "Certainty Principle" article? You are right. I do not approve of original research on Wikipedia. I leave that to real life. --Bduke 22:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Rcq, 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! —Khoikhoi 00:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hey Rcq, thanks for the barnstar. :) What specific edit of mine are you referring to? —Khoikhoi 00:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thanks agian. —Khoikhoi 00:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS!!!!11

That was certainly the first elephantal-rectum-themed award I've ever gotten. It was GREAT!!!!!!!11!!!!one!

As others above mention, perhaps you might like to read Wikipedia:No original research in your spare time. This might explain to you why we took the action we did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle. There is no malice in the deletion, but you have to understand that the article violated an important criterion of inclusion in Wikipedia. If you think this policy should change, feel free to engage with people on that page (although I must mention that any change there is unlikely). --Deville (Talk) 12:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainty principle

The journal "Fontanka physics" - please give a full citation for the paper. Give full details of this journal. I can find no reference to it on Google or Google Scholar. The first dozen or so references combine "Physics" with what appears to be a street called "Fontanka". Putting the two together as "Fontanka Physics" or "Fontanka physics" gives no hits on either Google or Google Scholar. At this stage it is not looking reputable. These days, I think one measure of a reputable journal is that you can quickly find a table of contents on the web using Google, but I do understand that some journals have not yet been able to do this.

I have not seen a mention of this before. It does not appear to be on Arbatsky's web page, but I could have missed it. I do not think it was cited on the WP article "Certainty Principle". If it had it might not have been deleted. I understand that you do not know the referees or their comments. Having said all this, it seems to me that if the Certainty Principle was notable and a real advance in physics, it would by now be more widely cited in the scientific literature. --Bduke 23:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) This is Russian government, who has to know about the journal, not Google. The full citation is not a problem. If you think that the journal is not "reputable" - you can think so. (2) In contrast, the question of notability is important. Here I completely agree with you. But you can go to the article Uncertainty principle and read the section "Energy, time and further generalizations". If you have objections against the content, you can start a discussion there. If you agree, then you have to agree that the certainty principle is notable. (The certainty principle for Elephants is also recommended.) (3) I still do not understand why Pythagorean theorem is not "original research". Rcq 14:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, stop avoiding the question or I will cease this discussion which I brought here in good faith. Give me details of the journal so I can track it down and give the cite of the article - Volume, Year, Pages. I do not know whether it is reputable because I know nothing about it. Being Russian is not a problem - see Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry. That is a reputable Russian journal. I want to find out whether it is reputable. It is not listed in List of scientific journals in physics for example, although that list is very short compared with the corresponding chemistry list which I have worked on. Second, while I do understand quantum mechanics, I am actually a quantum chemist and I am not familiar with the literature around mathematical quantum theory with particular reference to the uncertainty principle. I therefore am probably not in a position to judge whether the article is wrong, or perhaps trivial, or correct and/or notable. Third, it does not help that I have been unable to load the pdf version in my Adobe reader. Forth, the Pythagorean theorem or as you used earlier, the Uncertainty principle and whether they are original research. WP works as do other encyclopedias by collecting together the world's knowledge. It needs sources. The Pythagorean theorem is of course widely known and is described in many books and articles. In WP we summarise what they say. That is why it is not OR. In the case of the Certainty principle, we had one self-published article. Above, you are asking me to assess whether it is notable. You are asking me to do OR. What we need is a report from someone who has done that OR. If I did it and published it in a review article, we could say "B Duke reviews the recent theorem of Arbatsky, and concludes that it is a valuable advance leading to greater understanding of the Uncertainty principle." With cites that would be sufficient to make the certainty principle not OR. This is why the reference to the Journal article may be important and it was never, to my knowledge, mentioned previously. I thought another poster earlier did a good job in explaining to you why the Uncertainty principle is not OR. The point is that all science was originally original research at one time, but we report what others say about it so we have a consensus of what the world thinks about it. Read WP:OR but note how it links "not OR" to verifibility. We have no source that verifies what Arbatsky wrote.

Sorry. I did not sign this. It was 23:31, 28 May, 2006. (UTC) Bduke

(2) Nobody avoids the question. I just do not have the journal in my arms. But if you cannot find the journal, you certainly will not be able to find the article. (3) As far as I know, in Russia, like in many other free countries, everybody can print a journal and it has the same (legal) status as many others. Nobody has to register them in Wikipedia. (4) If you are not a specialist in the question, why do you think that it is your duty "to defend young minds from the pestilent influence" of the certainty principle? Possibly, when you voted for deletion of the article, you were right, in the sense that some decision had to be expressed, and nobody said (on the discussion page) anything more reasonable. But currently you are free to cease the discussion. I will just invite other people from the Uncertainty principle. If they have something to add, the discussion will be continued. If not, I will start the voting on reinstatement of the article. (Do not want to avoid this process.) (5) What version of Adobe Reader do you use? I have downloaded both articles from the site and checked them in Adobe Reader 6.0.1 03.11.2003. They look perfectly. (6) Currently, the certainty principle is already "the world's knowledge". Even the author cannot change it. If you mean that it is not "widely known", then you can ask your friends (not physicists) about the Uncertainty principle. You will find that, unlike Pythagorean theorem, it is "almost unknown"... It is not an argument. (7) "We have no source that verifies what Arbatsky wrote." Possibly, you are right. To some extent I support your concern. On the other hand, the topic cannot be suppressed for this reason only. There are more than enough competent specialists in the question in WP, who can criticize the article. If somebody does it, then the arguments of "notability" and "verifiability" can be considered as additional. And only if discussion becomes non-constructive. But currently the CP should be considered just as an "obvious fact", like 2*2 = 4, or maybe as something a little more complicated. WP policy allows such facts. (8) If the article is really redundant, the worst thing that can happen is that this article will be "isolated" (with no incoming links). There are a lot of such articles, including those with OR. Nobody will attend it. Then it will be removed by robot. But currently, from purely technical point of view, the situation is worse, because the article about the Uncertainty principle contains importat piece of text that contains important external links. Those links can be easily broken. Rcq 23:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]