User talk:SCZenz/Archive6

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

Atlas 0.5 nom[edit]

No problem, I understand. The article itself is excellent (perhaps changing to inline citations would do it a bit of help) but it is too narrow in scope for a test version, which is what 0.5 is. For now, we're trying to get a lot of very fundamental, almost vital articles only. It's much more likely that it will pass inspection for Version 1.0, which is what we intend to be the full release. We do keep track of excellent articles outside the release's scope at Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations/Held nominations, so you can be assured we will look at it some time in the future, though. A very similar topic we would accept this time around is Particle accelerator, for example, because it's more broad, more fundamental. That said, keep up the good work, I was impressed with the article. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is an interesting question. Personally, I think that articles such as String theory and general relativity should be part of Wikipedia 0.5, as they're sufficiently important to go into a static release. Vital articles is not the definitive list for acceptance; articles such as the ones you mentioned would easily be classified as Key articles, which also are included in the release. So, if you think there are articles which meet both criteria, feel free to nominate them. Also, feel free to help us review articles, as I'm the only one doing Natural Sciences review lately... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


SCZenz, is it that you are in the habit of ignoring Wikipedia mail or just that you didn't find my email interesting enough to warrant an acknowledgment? Dragons flight 19:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion & Notability[edit]

I noticed this post on USER:Cholmes75 page.

Hi there. I notice that you've lately nominated some articles for speedy deletion for being non-notable. ... I would encourage you to use PROD instead for entries that are obviously not notable but don't meet any speedy criteria. Thanks, SCZenz 22:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You may be interested in seeing discussion under Loob. USER:Winstonwolfe.

TfD nomination of Template:Physics Series[edit]

Template:Physics Series has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. {{Physics subjects}} is co-nominated. Srleffler 17:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Work via WikiProjects[edit]

Hi, Welcome to the WP:1.0 Review Team! I noticed that you listed yourself as interested in WP:WVWP, is that right? As you may have seen here, we are planning to start contacting projects again soon, using a message something like this. Would you be willing to help? It involves posting a message on each project page, recording what you're doing on our page, then following up a few days later to see how the project has responded. Often there is no response, but sometimes (as with Military History) they go off and create their own worklist of 6000 articles! We are also encouraging groups to start using the bot, as we do for WP:0.5. Can you help out? Thanks, Walkerma 05:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Uncertainty principle talk page[edit]


I just noticed your recent deletion of Bilivon's post on the talk page of uncertainty principle. While I agree that this guy tiresome, I don't think it's appropriate to censor a talk page like this. But that's just my opinion.--O. Prytz 18:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support[edit]

Hebe x franciscana.jpg
Dear SCZenz/Archive6,
Thank you very much for your support on my recent RfA. I am pleased to announce that it passed with a tally of 72/11/1, and I am now an administrator. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the tools, but please let me know if there are any admin jobs I can do to help you, now or in the future. —Cuiviénen 02:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You're saying a lot of things[edit]

But I'm not sure what you're actually saying. Could you elucidate? Can you point out where his edits are lacking, and why that is a lack in your opinion?

Kim Bruning 12:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Mending Wall[edit]

You said, The copyright issue was a non-starter, unless you were willing to believe that Wikipedia:Public domain was incorrect. Since I created the AfD, I can only assume that your comments were aimed at me. Since my opinion on the matter is that things like this should be discussed, and you feel I should have kept my opinion to myself, I can only assume it was a personal attack. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

RoyBoy deleted my first Wiki page: "Robert (Bob) Earll"[edit]

I wonder if you could take a look at this and help me understand what is not acceptable about a page that I created to pay homage to a tv screenwriter and inspirational speaker of some note. "Robert (Bob) Earll" (noted speaker, tv writer) deleted?

18:38, 19 June 2006 Royboycrashfan deleted "Robert (Bob) Earll" (A7)

Barely managed to find this explanation for why my initial effort at a Wiki page has been deleted within minutes of my getting it assembled. Why? The man is worthy, I'm sure. My clumsy effort? Okay, I admit I'm not adept. But... are you SURE that the site is not worthy of discussion even?

Oh, did I mention that I'm an Aspie who knows the difference between it's and its? Will that buy me any consideration in posting a Wiki page for a truly deserving man? And I loved Texas while I lived there, honest, in spite of the heat that melted the asbestos under my bare feet in summer! ZerendipT 19:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC) (SoCal Aspie with aspirations to add to Wikipedia's wealth of resources) Retrieved from ""

If you can help me understand the reason for the removal of this page, I'd be awfully grateful. If you can resurrect the page, so that others might find it and add to the info, I'd be more grateful. ZerendipT 20:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Your kind & informative reply to my request re: Bob Earll[edit]

Thank you for explaining why my offering on Robert (Bob) Earll was deleted. I can see that it is a vague article, but I have no more to offer than that. Earll is a speaker I found impressive 20yrs ago. Haven't seen him since then. He is not a friend or family or anything, nor am I selling his books. I offer his book titles as part of his credential, as I offer the URLs that mention his role as a tv series writer/producer/developer. Very little info is on record, as publicity is not his gig. His following is vast, but among a fellowship that is not much given to publicity. I suppose someday I'll find a death notice, possibly with pertinent facts about his life that I do not now find anywhere. That might be the basis for something more like a proper encyclopedia entry. Thanks, again, for your kind attention to this matter. At least I now know what "A7" refers to, as the violation that set off red flags for the kid in Texas who opted to close the page. So be it. Have a g'day. ZerendipT 22:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer to appeal: re: Robert (Bob) Earll[edit]

After hours navigating Wikipedia and finding Article 7, I think I shall rewrite the article and ask you for help in appealing a decision made by a 16yr-old Aspie in Texas. I'm an Aspie myself and am familiar with juvenile Aspies online. I can see how a teenager born in 1990 might well find a man whose worklife spans 1960s-1990s to be irrelevant and might apply this criteria to support an abrupt deletion of a first-time Wiki writer who admittedly wrote a fan-like offering. I can tone it down by simply pulling the adjectives, to start with. At any rate, I think I would like to appeal a decision to delete the info based on Article 7: "Unremarkable people or groups/Vanity Pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. (See Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles for further guidance on this criterion)."

Bob Earll's work in the 12step recovery field is the basis for my article. I'd like for the thousands of people who benefited from his writing and speaking candidly about his survival/recovery to know more about him than he generally spoke of. He was also a creative writer of some note, perhaps more creative because of his difficult childhood - if I may surmise from what I know of it. For people caught up in a tangle of untangling their lives, it might be important - possibly even significant - to know that a person can rise above early-life difficulties to achieve honors in life.

I sure hope I'm responding in the right place to contact you and to connect with an advisor to help me make this become part of Wiki's base of info about personalities who matter in the world.

In case it matters, I am a 62yr-old Aspie, diagnosed at 60 with Asperger's Syndrome also known as High Functioning Autism, a dx that sort of explains difficulties that created hurdles in my life as an editor of college textbooks and as a textbook designer on my Macintosh. Been in publishing and typesetting since the mid-1960s, about the same time Bob Earll was beginning to write for tv series. It would not surprise me to find out that Bob Earll is himself an Aspie, as many bright people are. Some say Galileo, daVinci and Bill Gates are likely Aspies. You can see how I twigged at seeing that my article had been deleted by an Aspie, right? Yep, I did. Then I did the math and saw he was a 16yr-old Aspie, many of whom I've come to know online as I seek info on my own dx and how to best manage having a processor that works in a circuitous fashion. That's the layman's definition of Asperger's. ZerendipT 06:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Apologies for rolling this back - popups just showed a large chunk of deleted text that looked legitimate and I did not investigate furthe. It was an honest mistake.--Retune

Still digesting WP's protocol for deleting (re: Robt(Bob) Earll)[edit]

With Aspie tenacity, I am reading with increasing interest the WP protocol for deleting pages. I'm definitely going to appeal the speedy deletion of the material that I offered to WP, as I see that WP has procedures for handling matters in a less chaotic fashion than was done.

Particularly this from (WikiPedia Criteria for Speedy Deletion)

==> Non-criteria Sometimes speedy deletion criteria, particularly some of the more subjective ones, are applied to articles that they do not and were not intended to apply to. This section aims to clarify some of the frequently used "non-criteria" that are commonly cited but are not sufficient, by themselves, to justify speedy deletion. These are not rules and intended only to be commonly-understood interpretations of the criteria above.

  • Non-notable subjects with their importance asserted: Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". If the article gives a claim that might be construed by anyone as making the subject notable, even if this claim seems ridiculous, it should be taken to a wider forum. However, articles with only a statement like "This guy was like so friggin' notable!" can be deleted per CSD A1 because it gives no context about the subject.

==> Procedure for Administrators See also: Wikipedia:Deletion process

Before deleting a page, an admin should check the page history to assess whether it would instead be possible to restore and salvage a previous version.

Admins should specify the deletion criteria in their edit summary and should notify the article's creator about the deletion, where applicable.

I believe I can appeal, given the situation that went on and the guidelines above. I'll be back with a terser article, unless you feel that an appeal of the original article to be reinstated under agreement that it will be modified to fit a more neutral profile - as neutral as one can be about a motivational speaker. Okay, I'm toying with you. I can tone down the fan(atical) descriptive stuff. ZerendipT 07:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]


Hello SCZenz, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 20:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You can restore the Robt(Bob) Earll article? Thanks![edit]

You can put it in my Userspace? That would be the ZerendipT User talk? Thanks. I'll whack away at it and see if I can trim it back to neutral comment on a man who changed lives with his candor. Not an easy thing to do, but I'll try. Lacking facts makes writing an article kind of tricky. No wonder I fluffed it up a bit with adjectives. I did find a short film that is available from a university, featuring him in a talk about recovery being a case of looking inside. I suspect publishing the catalog blurb is okay, not a copyright violation. I used to do copyright purchase/protection stuff, so I'm leery of that sort of thing.

At any rate, I am seeking more concrete evidence of Bob Earll's existence and substance, as a guy worthy of being listed in Wikipedia's encyclopedic bits/bytes. Thanks for your offer to coach me. ZerendipT 22:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Grim Records[edit]

Hi, when I posted the original db template there was no assertion of notability. There have been susbsequent edits to the page, and the author added a hangon tag. I still think that ther page contains a nn company so listed it at AfD. I'm not quite sure I see how that conflicts with A7.--Wisden17 10:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sorry I see what you are getting at now. Well thanks for taking the time to contact me.--Wisden17 11:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Patience exhausted[edit]

What do you think of an user conduct RfC for KraMuc? --Pjacobi 12:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

In case you are not following, KraMuc (with suspected sockpuppet) has violated 3RR in Modern Galilean relativity. I suggest blocking both for 24 hours until calm can prevail. Note also KraMuc's removal of constructive comments by Philosophus from the Talk page, which may justify an extension. Thanks, Crum375 13:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Good moves. Thanks for your help. Crum375 13:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


...because I misread the timestamps, and perceived that the warning came before the string of edits. If you feel the block was poorly issued, I freely grant that you may rescind it. DS 14:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Crystal Gail Mangum[edit]

Thanks for providing an explaination. I just felt you removed it arbitrarily, which is why I restored it. --tomf688 (talk - email) 15:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

2d thoughts about offering Robert (Bob) Earll to WP[edit]

I very much appreciate your kind attention to this matter. In considering what I might write as a factual report on a remarkable man, I've hit an ethical hurdle. Robert Earll is a professional screenwriter/producer/developer for tv series. As Bob Earll he speaks out in a way that may not be anything he wants known outside the community he frequents as Bob Earll. My bringing this together may not be a Good Thing in his eyes. It may be a breach of ethics. I too have a private and a professional life. The two are quite separate. I think I cannot write about this man unless I have his permission (and perhaps his help in documenting facts that will make a better article than I can do on my own). So, for the nonce, thank you EVER SO MUCH for your kind attention.

However, I am quite interested in an artist whose work is celebrated in SoCal and who is not as widely known as I think she ought to be. Ethel Greene is dead. I happen to have LOTS of info on her and maybe I can enhance WP by writing up Ethel Greene, a lady I met once decades ago and whose surrealism is almost as mind-blowing, in its own way, as is Bob Earll's work! ZerendipT 22:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Holy cow! Just found info on Robt(Bob)Earll - Who knew?[edit]

Wading into WikiPedia, I'm finding all sorts of stuff that did not come to light when my article was being put up, edited, things shifted around - in a process of getting it to a final stage.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- (cur) (last) 06:12, 21 June 2006 SCZenz m (moved Robert (Bob) Earll to User:ZerendipT/Robert (Bob) Earll: userfy)

  • (cur) (last) 06:11, 21 June 2006 SCZenz (rm speedy tag - about to userfy)
  • (cur) (last) 18:16, 19 June 2006 Whispering (If you wish to contest the speedy tag please use the hangon tag DO NOT remove the speedy tag)
  • (cur) (last) 18:13, 19 June 2006 ZerendipT (Adding URLs that pertain to Robert Earll's writing)
  • (cur) (last) 17:51, 19 June 2006 Whispering (Speedy)
  • (cur) (last) 17:38, 19 June 2006 ZerendipT (Initiating article, that others might add to the info I have.)


Looks as if I missed Whispering's early tagging of the article. Did not notice anything until RoyBoy's flag - or something - caught my eye.

I can see that there was an opportunity for me to contest the speedy tag, had I known or seen it.

Anyway, this is an intriguing system, this WikiPedia. I'm not sure I understand it yet.

Sorry that I entirely missed Whispering's efforts to alert me to speedy removal. Not at all sure why only Whispering - and not RoyBoy - interventions appear here. But I can see that some effort was made to cue me. I just did not see the cues. Duh!

Apologies all around. Y'all are clearly very busy, guarding WP's reputation. I appreciate that. ZerendipT 04:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Apology for Inappropriate Accusation of Vandalism[edit]

I apologize for marking that as vandalism. I was a bit upset with your edit because your removal of the image seemed a bit premature since, as discussed in the talk page of the article, an attempt was being made to verify the copyright status of the image, but you removed it before that process could be completed. However, while I still think the removal was a bit hasty, I now agree that it was clearly not vandalism, and I again apologize. Stanfordandson 19:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


Hey SCZenz,

NorseStar has been blanking your user pages. I've reverted three already, and I suspect he may continue. I was just about to slap a blatantvandal template on his talk page, but since you seem to be around, they're your pages, and you're an admin (and I'm not), perhaps you'd like to deal with it?--MikeJ9919 21:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, you seem to have noticed, as I just saw by re-reading your note to him more carefully. I'll leave it in your capable hands.--MikeJ9919 21:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Understood. Best to avoid biting the newcomers if possible. Always nice to meet an admin who isn't overly trigger-happy (not that I think most are). Also, while appreciated, thanks aren't necessary. People have been kind enough to revert vandalism to my user page in the past; I figure returning the favor is the least I can do.--MikeJ9919 21:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

DRV Stuff[edit]

In an effort to promote mutual understanding, I thought I'd address a point of yours at ANI. (Don't worry, I know you took a step back, and I wasn't upset by anything you said anyway -- good points, they are.)

"By the same logic, you could argue that WP:DRV could override the Keep-vote of an AfD because it "failed to consider" that the subject was non-notable. DRV is not a supreme court, and it is not a higher expression of community consensus than either policy or RfD, let alone both together"

That first part is true: anyone could nominate a keep closure for deletion on the grounds that notability wasn't considered, or considered properly. In most cases, anybody who did this (and loads of newbies do it -- in effect -- everyday) would be laughed out of the forum. The difference between that circumstance and this one is that the argument wasn't laughed off, but widely supported by established editors (in part because, as you noted, there are plenty of other "exceptions" to ASR out there.)

As to your second point: I recognize DRV isn't a higher forum (although it can overturn past decisions as is its mandate.) You might find the chat I had with Cyde at his talk interesting. After the DRV was closed, there were at least two avenues for change: 1) a new RfD; 2) an RfC on the issue of ASR and policy redirects. I don't think DRV is impeccable, and I surely know that I'm a moron. What I ask for, and expect, is that the DRV consensus, as the most recent expression of community will, be respected until one of those avenues is undertaken. That's why the reverts made me sad -- at first, they actually confused me, because I assumed that somehow people had missed the DRV. As it turned out, unfortunately, there were plenty of people who were willing to ignore the DRV, and I can't say that makes me feel good about Wikipedia's stability. Anyway, just thought I'd open a dialogue, and I'd appreciate any thoughts. Best wishes, Xoloz 00:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In principle, outside Wikipedia as well as within, I believe every decision should be subject to an appeal -- so that there is no confusion let me call this merely a "second look"; it is not an appeal to a higher forum, just a different one. I do agree (as I told MartinRe at his talk) that this case had a special quirkiness that did make its suitability for DRV somewhat suspect: however, it had already been closed and reopened once (by two different admins), and I felt a decision was needed to bring the thing to rest. If you feel that redirects are "lazy," then feel free to return the question to RfD or RfC, as I said. After a night's rest, the issue has changed for me: understandably, I think, I am now far more concerned with the viciousness with which I was impugned and my competence questioned (by others, not yourself.) Whatever our different opinions here, I was simply doing my job, and my act was in accord with practice, precedent, and the will of the community expressed at DRV. The manner in which I was addressed by Mackensen especially, who (metaphorically) threatened to kill me, is absolutely unacceptable. I do intend to file a Request for Comment on the matter sometime soon. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I can certainly see why DRV might give the appearence of being a supreme court, but its choices are never binding, and that is the defining difference -- anybody can take the issue back to the forum of origin, or to RfC, and -- if his or her view has merit -- then DRV can be overturned. I never lose sight of this. I do expect DRV to be respected until that overturn happens, but I expect that respect of any consensus decision taken in any forum.
I'm not trying to abdicate responsibility for my own decision-making, and I apologize if I did give that impression. My point was only that I had no stake in this debate, came to it fresh, read it and evaluated it, and came to decision consistent with the majority for the sake of user friendliness. I understand why people might call the result wrong, but I don't understand the suggestion that I decided it in an incorrect way. To me, the idea of discretion in decision-making means that, although one can dispute a result, one does not dispute the result-finder's work unless it is clearly unreasonable. I don't see a way for anybody to call my decision unreasonable in that sense -- and certainly not a "gross" defect in judgment, per Mackensen; or signs that I have "no complex thought" per Kelly. Of course, I freely and openly admit that the tenor of those insults has made me more defensive than normal, so I may be incapable of viewing my opposition as sympathetically as I typically attempt to do. Still, I am inclined to view criticism of me as "shoot-the-messager" phenomenon. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

personal attack reinserted[edit]

Hi please have a look at Talk:Bell's_spaceship_paradox, where EMS reinserted his personal attack. Thanks, Harald88 08:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC) PS, to be precise: his uncalled for statement-as-fact to a third party of his opinions that I "regularly takes a very rigid, limited, view on relativity issues." It corresponds closely to my opinion of his views, but IMO Wikipedia is not the place for such mud throwing. If this will be tolerated, I may decide to defend myself by engaging in a mud throwing spectacle (but how disgraceful!). Harald88 11:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

SCZnez - Let's just say that my past experience with Harald leaves me less than pleased with him. He very much overrates himself and his understanding of relativity. Let's just say that his actions on talk:special relativity and especially his cussing at myself, Chris Hillman, and Mpatel on talk:general relativity has raised serious concerns on my part about this editor. On talk:Bell's spaceship paradox I felt that my comments were needed to neutralize Harald's persistent allegations that Rod Bell's viewpoint is WP:OR. So I feel that my comments are justified. All that same, your advice to us both is excellent, and I will keep it in mind. --EMS | Talk 14:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
SCZenz, about your comments: Thanks for you looking into this (I also put this here on both your and my page). As it happens it was not at all the first of its kind: I have commented to him about his uncivil behaviour in the past. Moreover you didn't take into account that instead of apologising, he reinserted the comment, showing his disrespect for me as well as for WP:CIV. A stream of sneering remarks is more detrimental for Wikipedia than one uncivil outburst, and allowing them is gratifying for the offender.
As often, the problem arises when people confuse POV with facts. It is a fact that IMO EMS has a narrow understanding of SRT and thereby strongly overrates his understanding of relativity; and his opinion of me is similar. However, he presents on the Talk pages his opinion of me as fact, and pretends that that is useful. In contrast, IMO it is not beneficial for Wikipedia to fill it with mud.
BTW, I did not allege that Rod Bell's viewpoint is WP:OR: I commented on his allegations that Bell's approach is "a wrong approach" and "obscure" without referring to sources that make that claim, with the remark that my POV is that that WP:OR is erroneous - as you can see for yourself. This kind of misrepresentations by EMS are typical, and for some time I am also tempted to warn other editors about it. From your reaction on my talk page, I take it that I am allowed to make such warnings; but I strive for a ban on all such actions and in fact I had the impression that WP:CIV already does so. Apparently not. Harald88 15:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's useful at this stage for me to decide which of you is right. I am hoping that both of you can be a bit nicer and react less strongly to each other in the future, and the problem will go away. -- SCZenz 06:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


I wanted to offer an apology for it appearing that I was lumping your legitimate edit in with the actions of other admins on original research. My intent had been to point out that there wasn't consensus on making the change and, most importantly, that the admins who deleted the article had not followed proper deletion guidelines. You did nothing wrong in any of this and it wasn't my intention to imply that you did. My apology for any misunderstanding and trouble this caused you.

Personally, I was a little shocked by the statements of some of the admins involved in all of this, especially how they attacked the idea of seeking consensus on this change. You, though, took part in none of that and your compromise seems to be something people can agree on. Best,--Alabamaboy 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)