User talk:SCZenz/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello, 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:

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Particles

Good work. I see that you and Xerxes have pretty much done the clean up that I thought I would do. I'd begun to remove the totally unnecessary pages on every antiparticle. Thanks for pitching in and especially for redoing the particle template. Bambaiah 13:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Crap

I don't edit science articles on purpose. It just makes me mad. Come to think of it, almost everything on wikipedia anymore just makes me mad. DirectorStratton 17:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

particle classification

The category "subatomic particles" is catch-all: analogy is to the main data tables in the particle data book (although there is no need to be so inclusive). The categories "fermion" and "boson" I believe are useless categorizations and should be removed. Particles can be in more than one category.

It's not totally clear to me whether one should go for a lepton/hadron classification or a elementary/composite classification. The 1st has the advantage that it already exists, and although there are particles which may not be either, the spillover can always be acccomodated into "subatomic particles". The 2nd makes more sense within the standard model (or its extensions), and with the article that you are writing/have written. The composite category can easily be subdivided into things like "hadron", "nuclear isotopes" etc.

I was wondering whether this discussion should be initiated in the wikiproject: particles, but that seems to have been started by some undergrads, and is anyway defunct. If you and one or two others are willing to revive it in order to put this discussion on record, then it may be useful. --Bambaiah 09:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Black hole electron

I just want to assure you that objections are unlikely, at least before we see what you do with it. The person most likely to object is Don, whose original research resulted in the creation of the black hole electron page, and he has been very cooperative.

I personally want to see what you can do with that page. Be bold. That page needs it. --EMS | Talk 22:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I want to see what you can do with "Black hole electron" also. This
is not an easy task. As part of your research I invite you to look at 
my user page. There are some quotations there and some numbers 
that may be intersting. -- DonJStevens 17:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hi,

thought I'd extend my welcome as well. The main physics project page is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics although what you really want to watch (and participate in) is the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. Note also that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics is also often highly relevant, and, as mathematics is a somewhat older project on WP, has a lot more activity/participation. Anyway, welcome! If you have questions, concerns, comments, uncertainty, complaints, etc. or find yourself irratated at some person or WP process, or ettiquette, please, don't hestitate to ask me or (better yet) voice them on the project talk pages. linas 22:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2005

Inserting "as of" links is - as far as I know - not an "official" Wikipedia policy, only a recommendation. Still, it is a systematic way of "currency tracking", and it is useful as such, although I would agree it is much more useful for more obscure pages that are not likely to be updated quickly after the facts change. GregorB 21:38, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. String theory article says: "As of 2005, string theory is unverified." This may also sound silly; if someone managed to prove that string theory is correct (or wrong) - well, to put it mildly, people would notice... GregorB 22:01, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Precisely. I can't imagine a scenario like: "Bang! String theory is now (dis)proved." Even if such a thing was within reach of today's physics, it would probably take a decade to decide one way or the other. String theory article going without an update for 10 years? I don't know... :) GregorB 22:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Kaons

Certainly the lifetimes should be attributed only to K-long and K-short. The remainder are errors. Please feel free to correct. Bambaiah 06:45, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Sidam

Hi, SCZenz. You, I and others have had to revert User:Sidam's soliloquies many times. I'm not sure whether to classify him as a vandal or just someone who doesn't get the point of Wikipedia. I think it's about time we raised this issue on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. This is the best way I can think of to bring this problem to wider attention. If I submit a complaint, would you be willing to countersign it? --Heron 19:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralinos etc.

With regard to neutralinos you have a good point. Rather than simply omitting any reference to them, however, I think a brief statement distinguishing the two would be better, as the name certainly invites confusion. You might want to try to craft it as a sort of see also. It wouldn't be strictly a disambiguation, but along the same lines.

With regard to the fourth generation point, I have read juried articles on neutrino mass that address that question. I'm sorry that I do not have references at hand, as I am writing from memory. In any case, it pretty much follows from the standard model itself that this is where you would look.

With regard to quantum gravity, many computer models have already looked at neutrinos as dark matter candidates (and rejected them) and the statement speaks for itself to some extent.

Apologies if I missed anything. Ohwilleke 00:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SLAC

If you make SLAC a redir, you need to put a disambig notice on the destination page, and you need to create SLAC (disambiguation). Thanks. Guettarda 18:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one, redlinks encourage growth, but the main reason I stuck in the Selective Liberal Arts Consortium was that I kept seeing references to SLACs on the discussion boards at the Chronicle of Higher Education, but when I looked up SLAC there was no mention of that meaning. As it stood, even without the article it still answered my question. I could have written a stub, but it would have had little more information than the dab page did. When people see bluelinks they tend to assume that there's an article there, when people see redlinks they realise that there is a need for articles, and if they know about the subject they may create the article. I don't have a problem with SLAC redirectin to the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (since the vast majority of google hits go there), but I think the existence of other meanings is useful information. Guettarda 19:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Guettarda 20:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks; although you may need a posse to turn me into an admin. :) linas 00:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LBL copyright info

Technically LBL's copyright info means that it most likely cannot be used on Wikipedia under a "complying" license -- i.e., by their given terms -- because we no longer use licenses on Wikipedia which could not be exported under the GDFL (which does not prohibit non-educational, for-profit usage). The major exception to this is our use of "fair use" images, though, which is how this category of images could be used under specific circumstances (i.e., if there are no "free" substitute images, if the image we use is low-res, and if we specifically credit them so that other people could find them to license it). I'll put a note about that on the page. --Fastfission 14:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think the current policy is a little contradictory (we won't allow images licensed for only educational use, but will allow images which are used completely without the permission of the copyright holder altogether), but it's what we've got for now. If you can take hi-res pictures of lab equipment and license them under a free license, it would be a tremendous addition to the world of "free culture". But you might have to make sure that wouldn't be violating any of the policies of the UC (which could be pretty strict, if I recall from my time as an employee there) or the lab itself. --Fastfission 17:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing for photos of professors is talks of some sort... then you can pretend to be one of the crowd! (I got a really bad one of philosopher John Searle that way when I was at Berkeley.. it's awful, but honestly it's what he looks like these days!). Otherwise it's pretty obvious when the one photo you asked for ends up being the best-known one online... --Fastfission 02:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're a crazy guy

In two months you've almost caught up to the number of edits that I have done in a year (although probably 20% of my edits are anons due to laziness). I thought graduate students were supposed to be busy? DirectorStratton 23:26, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Cool thing

http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=USERNAME&dbname=enwiki You can use this to get a precise picture of your edit history. DirectorStratton 00:58, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

New Discussion

New discussion just started on Talk:Capacitor THought you may be interested. (Simple Electronics this time) :-)--Light current 01:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom dab

Thanks for fixing up my inept description of a bottom quark at Bottom. Just thought I'd let you know that piping and unnecessary wikilinks generally don't go on disambiguation pages. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) has more info. --Commander Keane 16:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Large Hadron Collider

Thanks for the message. I happened to look up the LHC and noticed that the words 'extra dimensions' showed up as a missing link. I thought that while I was there that I could easily correct this. However I had several attempts at selecting an article that covered this topic. The nearest I could get was 'Why 10 dimensions?' but feel free to change this link to something better. JMcC 07:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sidam does he understand English?

Do you think its possible that User:Sidam doesnt actually understand English and that is why he has not responded to our requests?--Light current 22:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Coral

DON EIGLER These are just the electrons which are trapped in the surface layer, but within the surface layer they're free to move around. These electrons are waves. And the waves when they move, they sometimes bang into features on our surface like the step edges or individual atoms which might be sticking out of the surface. Now when a wave bangs into something, it reflects off of that thing, and when you have reflected wave adding together with the incoming part of the wave, it sets up what we call a standing wave. These are regions where there are large oscillations which are fixed where they are in space, and regions where oscillations go to zero.

MICHAEL RIORDAN I've always felt that the wave function was just a description of a reality and the reality was deeper, it was a particle. And the wave function was just something mathematical up in a physicists head. To actually see a physical wave function rippling across the surface is rather disturbing. If I was really honest I'd probably have to tell you that I need to go back and reassess the way I've pictured the world.

DON EIGLER Well I'm probably somewhere in error or maybe I'm just a heretic. I don't believe in this wave particle duality mumbo-jumbo, I think it's mostly just the left over baggage of having started off to understand the world in terms of particles and then being forced because of the quantum revolution to think of the world in terms of waves. And we're stuck with this dualistic way of looking at these very small particles. Don't even think about them as particles, electrons are waves. And if you think of them in terms of waves you will always end up with the right answer. Always.

My bolding

Look up Don Eigler of IBM on Google. He has made some interesting progress on surfaces at the atomic level You can look here also [1]. :-)--Light current 03:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GOOD JOB

Good job on the move! I think it really looks excellent! How about you? I owe you (two) now, LOL Regards, until we cross paths again; Thanks again Scott 16:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request your help and opinion

1) :SCZenz, Please see @ your convenience, Thanks Scott 14:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2) :SCZenz, Need your opinion, Sorry to be a pain in the you know what, Anyway, what do you think about merging Dipole magnet and Bending magnets Pretty much the same, Let me know what you think, when you have a chance. Thanks again Scott 01:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3) :SCZenz, What do I owe you, Three now? I am obliged to you for your gracious time, courteousness, and technical expertise. Thank G-d you are not the unrealistic outer world type physicists, if you know what I mean.... There should be more people like you. [2]

SCZenz , This one is definitly for you, from me! Scott 14:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC) Hang in there we'll get stuff done, Its just a matter of time. See [3] [4] Want me to help, or not, No problem on what you want, up to you.[reply]

Edits

Only 1000!? You must be working too hard at the day job!;-)--Light current 10:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep on your message, Life goes on, there will always be obsticles in our way.

Abuse

Cease making personal attacks. Andy Mabbett 21:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My comment on User_talk:Scottfisher, which Mr. Mabbett must be referring to, was intended to defuse an edit war, and wasn't intended to be an insult, or indeed to be read by anyone but Scott. -- SCZenz 21:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tag this properly and user continues to wipe it out, never getting anything constructive done. [5]

LEP

I had some spare time so I had ago at cleaning up LEP. Hope you dont mind. Pls check my work for errors/omissions. THanks--Light current 23:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page looks ver nice now!!--Light current 00:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hole

Yeah! Put it back if you like. I (as a novice on BH) just thought it was easier to digest the way I put it. But thanks for asking me. --Light current 21:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry . Didnt realise it was featured article.(should have looked more carefully at talk page) Wouldnt have touched it if I'd known.--Light current 22:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Out of

They released me, actually Doc, I had to steal the keys while they were sleeping. Wanted to tell you before I got shut out last night funding for SNS is from the office of science and it looks good for OPERATIONS next year. SSRL is funded different than SLAC, It's the National Science Foudation while SLAC is office of science too. Did you guys get your budget yet? Getting late here. PS: Brookhaven looks bad next year. I have a picture od SLD @ SLC which is mothballed. The biggie for SLAC is LCLS, Light source from sector 10-20. Also astrophysics, GLAST. As always a pleasure, Have to run, Again "Have a good weekend", Cheers Like your picture of the day! {The smaller the particle the larger the detector), Getting late here...Nite Nite Scott 02:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect

I've run across the term before, but I just saw you use it in a talk page and thought I'd ask while it was fresh in my mind. Is there a technical meaning for "speedy redirect"...? Or does it just mean any old person going in and replacing a non-notable article with a redirect? Thanks. -- SCZenz 02:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SCZenz. Usually the term is used on WP:AFD to indicate that one believes a deletion discussion should be closed immediately and the article replaced with a redirect. This often happens when someone unfamilar with redirects posts an article to AFD, and there's immediately an overwhelming consensus to redirect the article. But in this case I just meant a plain old redirect. Pburka 02:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doc

Are they talking Astrophysics here? Not sure. Have a good weekend! Vacuum energy Thanks, Scott 23:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

a heads-up on the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees

Greetings,

Since you voted to keep the article List of Guantanamo Bay detainees I thought I would give you a "heads-up". A copyright violation was filed against the article, on October 11th. It was filed by someone who had voted to delete the article on October 5th.

I believe that the copyright violation is entirely bogus. I believe it is bogus because, as explained in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, lists of facts, like lists of names, cannot be copyright. This Feist v. Rural case went all the way to the US Supreme Court, which made the possibly counter-intuitive ruling that the amount of effort someone put in to compiling a list plays no role in determining whether that list is eligible for copyright protection.

Even if alphabetic lists of names could be copyright, I believe the wikipedia list would not be violating copyright since the list was compiled from various sources.

Yes, I have considered that this user invoked a bogus copyright violation to achieve a result that failed in the {AfD}. Yes, I asked them to terminate the copyright violation process, in light of Feist v Rural. They declined. The backlog in the administrators dealing with copyright violations seems to be on the order of a month long.

Anyhow, I wanted the people who had shown interest in the article to not freak out, or feel betrayed, by seeing the copyright violation tag. -- Geo Swan 11:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World Wide Web

Thanks! I just caught myself too, so i was about to change it back. I jumped the gun and changed before reading the whole article (clearly a no no), but sometimes i get impatient. Thanks for catching it and changing it back!--Gephart 04:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox fun

Heh, thanks for the heads up. I ditched the 1984 category. How's grad school @ Cal going? I'm applying for my PhD there right now, pretty stressful =). Elefuntboy 06:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I've loved getting my BA and now my MA at UCSD, but i'm looking forward to something new. Elefuntboy 09:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

haha, good call. last time i was in chicago it was -10 degrees Fahrenheit. I hightailed it back to 80 degree LA weather. Elefuntboy 00:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Root Beer?

As a fellow Berkelian, might you be availble for a Root Beer on South Side? Leave me a message on my talk page. I wrote: "You can also post your problems here[ Refrence desk, physics , so that the last poster [SCZenz] and I can quibble over the answers, and make them as clear and easy to understand as possible. Artoftransformation 08:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC). ( Note: after 4 minutes of viewing SCZenz page, I could just walk over to Southside and have a Root Beer with him. From his diagram of the Higgs boson...If we disagree, Id recommend you believe him. )

ATLAS Detector

Kermit the frog here...Does the Higgs Boson diagram, have any significance towards the design and function of the ATLAS Detector? Artoftransformation 22:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Touch Deletion Review

hi there, I appreciate your offer to help with posting to the deletion review.

my appeal is as follows:

Opening statement: I posted the article on the Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard on Wikipedia, in good faith, thinking that it was an educational article, similar to the "How Stuff Works" articles, that are quite informative and useful. I received comments in no particular order, as follows:(I added the 1). , 2)., to make references easier)

The Comments:

1). Delete : apparent advertisement for product, already edited-out elsewhere, added by probable spammer Special:Contributions/69.118.41.221. --Zigger User:Zigger User_talk:Zigger 16:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2). Delete - I agree, a product ad. Bergsten User:Bergsten 16:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3). Delete, advert. Stifle User:Stifle 00:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4). It's got to do with a product making national news or not, I think. You might review What Wikipedia is not WP:NOT and WP:SPAM WP:SPAM, and if you still disagree with me you can appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion Review Wikipedia:Deletion_Review . -- SCZenz User:SCZenz 22:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5).Roomba Roomba is an article that was written by Wikipedians, not by the company that makes the product. 6).You have a patent on the technology used in the Oven rack guard and clearly have a vested interest in creating the article. That's the difference, and the reason why your article is an advertisement and Roomba Roomba is not. If you'd like to create a Request for Undeletion, you can, but it will not succeed. Andre User:Andrevan (talk User_talk:Andrevan) 20:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 7). Your article reads like sales pitch, 8). your references are essentially product reviews. 9).The oven rack guard, as proud as you are of it, is non-notable. Are there other oven rack guards on the market? I couldn't find any, you are stuck having to reference your product because no others exist. 10). Using a sock puppet Internet_sock_puppet, NoMoreBurns...index.php?title=User:NoMoreBurns&action=edit, to attempt to get your article published, as well as 11). your lack of contributions to other articles, isn't helping your case. maxcap User:Maxcap 20:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

12). Phroziac wrote: User:Phroziac I've heard of cool touch before. It's not as known about as Roomba. 13). Deletion discussions are usually very silly. 14). You need independant, verifiable sources to write an article. See our policies on "No independant research" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR). 15). It's also usually considered a bad idea to write about yourself, your company, or something you invented. 16). And, it's way more likely to be neutral if someone else writes it. Anyway, you should probably just let someone else write the article. If someone takes the time to write about it on Wikipedia, then we *know* it's well known

Reviewing the numbered comments above:

1). Comments 1,2,3,5,6,7,15 indicate that the CTORG article is, an advertisement, a sales pitch, a vanity article. To these, I respond with the Roomba article; here are some quotes from the article: "Roomba is a robotic vacuum cleaner made and sold by iRobot." "Twenty percent of the sale price of this Roomba will be donated to the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, with a $45,000 minimum guarantee." "As of May 2005, over 1.2 million units have been sold, making it the most successful domestic robot so far." "Unlike the competing (and much more expensive) Electrolux Trilobite vacuuming robots, Roomba's do not map out the rooms they are cleaning."

Not to mention a detailed description of all the models and accessories available, My contention is that if this self touting article has not been deleted as a long winded advertisement, then the CTORG article is not an advertisement/sales pitch/vanity article.

2). Comments #5, 6, 10, 15 and 16. indicate that the reason the CTORG article is considered an advertisement is because it is written by me and I have vested interest. In response to this, the article was edited and reposted by another person, who has no vested interest, yet the CTORG article remains deleted. The resubmit was further discounted, by deeming it "written by a sock puppet". See the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith (I can supply an affidavit).

3). Comment #11, my lack of other contributions, in my opinion, is not a criteria for article deletion.

4). Comment #4, The Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard made national news when Reader's Digest and HGTV, presented international written and video coverage. Additionally, two newspaper articles are cited in the CTORG source links. Other newspaper articles can be supplied, if required.

5). Comment #8 indicates that the references cited by the CTORG article, are product reviews. Indeed, the references cited refer to this technical development, as embodied by the CTORG product. Please see Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_phone and check out all the product reviews in the External Links. If those references are acceptable, then the CTORG references are acceptable.

6). Comment #9 indicates that the CTORG article, is non-notable, "because no others exist" The latter, is absolutely true, there is no other product like the CTORG. Please see Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dippin_dots in which no others exist. If this article can be in Wikipedia, then the CTORG article can be. Additionally "Notability is related to importance </wiki/Wikipedia:Importance>. Articles should be relevant to a reasonable number of people". The CTORG article is relevant to anyone who uses an oven, as well as, the many who have burned themselves. Are there any female admins?

7). Comment #13...no comment.

In Summation:

I believe that the Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard article in one of its more recent edits, meets the criteria for a Wikipedia article and does not meet the criteria for deletion:

1). It is written based on independent, verifiable and notable sources. (See the CTORG article below) and so it is not written, as original research (such as reporting data coming from one's lab).

2). It is notable, as it is relevant to anyone who uses an oven. It was written about in Internationally circulated articles from Reader's Digest(May 2004), HGTV, and Gizmag (Austrailia). It has won the Cooking Club of America's Seal of Approval.

2). It is not a vanity page, because it was lastly edited and submitted by someone, other than myself, who has no vested interest in the article.

3). It is not a product advertisement or sales pitch. The embodiment of the particular use of two of Nomex's physical properties is indeed a product (Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard). One cannot discuss this particular use of Nomex's properties, without discussing it's embodiment. (see comment #9..."you are stuck..."). Additionally, The CTORG article's wording, does not try to persuade someone they need it, does not offer it for sale, quote a price or tell where it can be bought.

4). It has a more neutral point of view, than the Roomba article, which has not been cited for POV.

Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard article:

(note: each line is an independently verifiable fact, no opinions) (note: some source articles were stored in my FTP space)

Ovens and stoves, throughout history, have something in common; they will burn the person who comes in contact with their hot metal surfaces, for instance, the oven rack's front edge [6]. Devices to protect the hands, such as oven gloves, have been developed, but need to be used consistently, to be effective; so people still get burned. In 2004, a device was developed by Burt Shulman of Wappingers Falls, NY, called the Cool Touch Oven Rack Guard, which is a fabric strip that attaches along the front edge of the oven rack and stays in the oven. [7] If a person touches it, even at 500 deg. F., they will not be burned. The fabric is made from a modern synthetic fiber called Nomex Nomex - which can withstand 500 deg. F. temperatures and has both low thermal conductivity Thermal_conductivity and thermal mass Thermal_mass, [8]. These material properties reduce the heat transferred to the skin, during the "touch', so no burn results. Source Articles: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]