User talk:Sbharris/archive2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive #2 All messages from the beginning of 2007 up to the end of March, 2007.

Energy

This is an article that is not on my watch list so it is new to me. I am breaking my usual habit of replying to comments on my talk page there and I am replying here. I ask you to reply on my talk page and the debate can go on there. It is getting late at night here and I am rather exhausted as last night was too hot to sleep well. I am therefore asking you and User:Hallenrm to both try to state clearly on my talk page what you think the problem with this article is and why you are disagreeing. Could you please do that? I will try to help tomorrow or whenever I get your views. I really am not sure that you are far apart. There is often an artificial difference between how chemists and physicists think. Please try to remain civil to each other. --Bduke 11:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response on my talk page. I have not had a response from User:Hallenrm, although I see he has been editing Energy in the last hour. Lets see if he replies by tomorrow. Having looked at the article, I do not think you are too far apart. I'm afraid both of you are not quite as clear in your edits and edit summaries as you might have been and I think that is part of the problem. The text you appear to have started from is not very clear. Perhaps you need to start some paragraphs from scratch, but I suggerst you discuss it on the talk page first. I also see that others are trying to work on the energy article also. That might help. --Bduke 08:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

nuke waste

ull find my response on the talk page...and actually i was quite interested in gerontology myself...and senescence delay in particular...anyways...good day...Benjiwolf 19:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

nuclear fission

TNX! zowie 00:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Gunfight at the O.K.Corral

Regarding your recent edit, I'm curious about the details of your edit summary. You edited the article text to say:

Billy Clanton was shot through the right arm, close to the wrist joint (Keefe testified the bullet passed through the arm from "inside to outside," entering the arm close to the base of the thumb, and exiting "on the back of the wrist diagonally" with the latter wound larger)

With this in the edit summary:

Difficult for bullet to go from thumb to outside of arm with arm in any "up" position. This becomes important to final Spicer verdict)

I'm not an expert on this particular gunfight or the Spicer verdict you mention, but if you mean to say that the injury would be difficult to sustain if Clanton were in the act of surrender with arms raised, I disagree.. It's difficult to explain using text but if Clanton had his right hand raised that injury seems entirely consistent... especially if the attacker was firing from Clanton's left. Robotsintrouble 07:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Anything works from Clanton's left, agreed. But if the attackers are facing squarely off, which I can't imagine them not doing in the circumstances described, it just doesn't work. Also, Billy, if he uses his right arm first to fire with, is going to have right side toward attackers, if anything. Again, no way for a bullet to hit his inside-thumb part of wrist and exit at the back, behind the hand. Not with hand up in surrender.SBHarris 07:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, pleased to meet you too... but I don't follow your logic. First, the fog of combat and time make this discussion academic without a better record of the original autopsy records. Then again, I'm something of an academic so I don't mind a little intellectual exercise.

In an attempt to show the anatomical contradiction in your argument, let us assume for a moment that the fighters were indeed in a standoff, and that Clayton's pistol was pointed at his assailants. In this posture, the only angles of attack from which a bullet could enter his inner arm and exit through the wrist are at least slightly to the attacker's left (unless Doc Holliday called in aerial support). While this by itself is completely plausible given the close range of the gunfight (mostly 10 feet or less according to the article), the resulting injury track would likely travel towards his elbow before exiting.

This matters because of one detail: I note that you've changed the wording of the original text slightly: according to the quote, the entry wound was at the inside (ventral/palmar surface) of his arm, not his wrist as you just said. This is in contrast to the exit wound, which is specifically described as being from the back of his wrist. If Clayton were pointing his pistol anywhere near his attackers, it should be the other way around-- entry wound closer to the hand (distal end of the arm), exit closer to the elbow (proximal end of the arm).

In order for the wound to exit from the back of the wrist after entering the inner arm near the thumb, one of the following is true:

• One or more of our many assumptions is wildly incorrect (most likely)
• The attacker was almost directly to Clayton's left (or to the left of where his pistol was pointed)
• Clayton had thrown up his hands, in which case this wound is completely plausible: he would have turned his hands, and thus the inside surface of his arms, towards his assailaints. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robotsintrouble (talk • contribs) 08:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

• Back in the bad old days there often were no autopsies-- certainly not full ones-- and there was none here. The doctor acting as temporary Coroner in the case, Dr. Harry M. Mathews, only describes the fatal wounds (and then only from superficial exam of the stripped bodies), and ignores the wrist altogether. The ONLY description we have of Billy's wrist is that of Thomas Keefe, a witness and carpenter, who felt the wounds on the dead Billy, and even poked a finger into one to the bone (rather in the matter of Thomas the Apostle, one supposes) to see for himself. He testifies in the Spicer hearing. Nobody else says anything about the matter until Judge Spicer declares in this judgement that "William Clanton was wounded on the wrist of the right hand on the first fire and thereafter used his pistol with the left. The wound is not such as could have been received with the hands thrown up, and the wound received by Thomas McLaury was such as could not be received with his hands on his coat lapels." Regard this, Spicer had seen during the trial a demo, and the only document we have of this reads exactly:

  In response to shot on wrist: "It went from the inside to the outside." Course of ball was diagnonal across the wrist [here witness illustrates upon the arm of Mr. Fitch, the direction in which the ball passed through the arm of Billy Clanton, by showing that the ball entered nearly in line with the base of the thumb, and emerged on the back of the wrist diagonally.] Says the orifice on the outside of the wrist was the largest. Did not see any powder burn on Billy Clanton's body or clothing."

  So far as I know, that's all the info history has for us. Except that we know the demo apparently convinced the judge. From our description we can put this in various ways-- obviously in anatomic position the base of thumb is lateral with arm down and there's no way to get a bullet into it except to rotate the forearm somewhat inward so the thumbside (what we usually call the lateral side of the forearm) is more forward, so it can receive a bullet. You can do that easily with the arm down and rotated 45 degrees inward, naturally. It's very hard to get into that position (thumb forward, ventral surface diagonally exactly behind, to allow a posterior exit on the ventral/back wrist) with the arm UP. Because you really have to crank that arm around to get the thumb in front, with the arm raised. That's what the judge apparently concluded. We have only verbal description.

  Finally, I might add that the bullet may well have hit Billy while he was in the act of drawing his pistol from a holster, which would for a moment have put him in exactly the right position to get a bullet above the thumb and out through the back of the wrist. Ty it. SBHarris 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the fascinating historical aside. In fact, I had the same thought myself - a bullet impact in the act of drawing a pistol - a few hours after leaving the comment. An interesting little snippet of history.. I've never actually seen Tombstone (movie), do you have any films you would recommend that re-enact the battle? I'm particularly interested in the story of Doc Holliday. Robotsintrouble 05:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

science

If you want something protected, just go to WP:RFPP and request it, and it will hopefully be taken care of. As for actually being able to protect them, that's an admin-only tool.Wizardman 03:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bismuth vandalism

Hm? The page history shows an unusually high amount of IP edits quickly followed by reverts. I'm not sure where it's coming from, but not sure if it's important (could be wrong). Luna Santin 02:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. Somehow or other, I saw way more people involved. Blocking instead. Luna Santin 02:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Bismuth edit

Hi. After some reflection I changed back your most recent edit to the above, as I thought the previous version read better (listing the protective equipment in more detail). I note your qualifications from your talk page and your experience as a Wikipedian, and don't want to appear high-handed in reverting the edit. If you disagree with my reverson, I am happy to discuss. Jeendan 03:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I should have put more of my thinking on the TALK page. As it is, this bit of article, which was supposed to be on crystals, was getting to be a collection of warnings and user instructions for amateurs. This is sort of unencyclopedic, since it's not our job to tell people about dangers of home hobbies, or give instructions on do it yourself dangerous stuff. We've had problems putting that stuff even in the "precautions" sections of element articles (which some people have argued shouldn't even BE there at ALL). Nevertheless, the precaution section has survived for particularly trecherous elements like sodium, sort of as a public service. But I'd hate to see "precaution creep" in this fashion, all over wikis, intended for people who are bound and determined to screw up with some material--- and that's what I thought I was detecting here. See if you don't agree. SBHarris 03:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jeendan"

I agree re precaution creep - this shouldn't be a how-to site for dangerous activities. I have posted a compromise wording which might be OK - feel free to change it further if you think it can be improved. Jeendan 03:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Esperium

I found the name when pushing List of elements by symbol to featured list status; it's listed there as a discredited discovery of Plutonium. Redirects are cheap, so I don't see a problem with keeping it. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 02:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I managed to dig up my sources; I've mentioned them at Talk:Plutonium. Seems like I wasn't imagining things, so I'm going to remove the prod tag. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 02:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Personally, I don't really care (chemistry isn't actually a real interest of mine). I think it would be fine to just mention these in the Plutonium article, but perhaps creating a short article at Hesperium would be better. Heh, but it'll probably be only a month before someone comes along and wants to merge it =). Anyway, I'll put up a stub on Hesperium from those sources, and switch the redirect. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 02:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, great. Separate articles on hesperium and esperium would be fine. Remember, element names are always non capitalized, though. Only symbols are capitalized. SBHarris 02:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Right, right; I was referring to the titles of their corresponding Wikipedia articles, not the elements themselves (though that's not clear from what I actually wrote; my mistake). Sorry for the confusion in all this; I hope we've reached a satisfactory solution. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 03:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yep, fine all around by me. Thanks for your patience. SBHarris 03:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

.45 ACP ballistics data

You once objected to the removal of the ballistics data in the Performance section of the .45 ACP article. Since we last spoke, the cartridge infobox has evolved to include more data. Any objections now? If not, I plan to remove it as it is fairly redundant. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, looks good to me now that there's a fair selection to help the reader understand what the general performance averages and limits are. For my *taste* this need not be extensive or complete, just representative. Naturally, others may disagree. SBHarris 20:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Helium Crystal structure

Sbharris: Please see this helium talk subject regarding the crystal structure of helium. I'm contacting you because I see from your contribs that you frequently write about chemistry. If you are sufficiently expert on the subject, I hope you’d weigh in. By the way, I note that your interests seem to parallel mine a great deal. Not only am I interested in scientific topics, but I ran a company back in the ’70s and ’80s that made exploding handgun ammunition. I sold it all over the U.S. and overseas. Greg L 15:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

New Pages

I'm assuming you're going to expand upon the new pages you've created - Convective heat transfer, Conductive heat transfer, Radiative heat transfer, Forced heat convection, and Natural heat convection, right? If they stay empty like that, they're likely to be Speedily Deleted. Just checking :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes. Give me five minutes, for crying out loud. Don't just delete and then leave a message on my talk page. Obviously I'm still working here. See the times?

Sorry - as I said, just checking. I noticed from your edit history that you know what you're doing, but the empty pages gave me pause. That's all - not an indictment, just making sure :) Thanks for checking back :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I'm going to have to go back and fix some stuff. Somebody created a heat transmission page which should have redirected simply to heat transfer. So I did a lot of expansion for nothing. I'll fix it. Hold your horses. SBHarris 06:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Hydrogen economy

Get a life —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.75.29.43 (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Proof that road-rage doesn't just happen on the road. I recommend aspirin and tobasco sauce in the morning. SBHarris 05:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok...

I'm sorry to bother you, but I'm not responsible for what has been vandalized in your atomic nucleus page. The IP address that I took a look at in the History tab does not match mine. Normally if I did do something, and I know it, I would have accepted your little warning thing and moved on with my life.

Look, I do have a record of doing some dumb crap to some of the pages on this site, but saying that I could be moving around computer to computer just to mess up pages is beyond crazy. I don't have THAT much time to mess up stuff here. Ok, it's plausible to give me a warning when it truly is my own dumb edit, and sure, I'll be responsible for it, but what you're about to do is blame every dumb shit no life in Canada, or in the region, on me so I'm automatically put on the spotlight. That's almost Nazism, where Hitler blames all his life problems to the Jews. Maybe it seemed ok to him, but frig that's dang unfair to the ones persecuted.

Make sure that you actually have some plausible evidence, like the way I vandalize pages or something, or maybe the stuff I edit, before you accuse me of doing something.

[user: 70.51.91.221]

Thank you for your time.

• Look, the edit in question is here: [1]. It's from the IP you just used, and it's an insertion of nonsense stuff of the same type as nonsense vandalism by another Canadian on the same page just a bit earlier[2], using a different IP. If that wasn't you, I apologize, but it means in any case that you're sharing an IP address with a vandal. The solution to that is to sign in with a username so you have your own password, so this doesn't happen and you're you not confused with anybody but yourself. So, log in. Don't come here to my talk page and complain that you've been confused with an anonymous vandal when it's nobody's fault but yours if you share an IP with an idiot. YOUR problem. SBHarris 05:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Source please

Hi, please provide a source for this edit. My references state 92 naturally occuring elements. --Sadi Carnot 00:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps there's a rule against for using wikipedia as its own source, but for stuff that's obvious, I don't think it's more than a simple problem of putting in the work to get a cite, which at this point I don't have. But there's no element up to Np (number 94 inclusive), which isn't found naturally on Earth, as you can see by reading the Wikis on all the elements with lower atomic numbers. So you can count, and the number is 94. I have no idea where the classical 92 number comes from in all the old books-- are they just mechanically going up to U and forgetting Tc and Pm? Or going up to Np and leaving out 43 and 61? Or maybe 85? and leaving in Tc or Pm? I dunno, and I don't care. But the number is 94. In the case of Np, it's found in trace amounts in U ores, having been formed by neutron capture. If you read down in the chemical elements article to the discovery section, it gives the 6 rarest ones on Aarth, starting with the rarest, astatine, followed by Fr, then the others (Pm and Tc found first in stars but later verified naturally, and Pu-244 actually found pimordially). If you look up the individual Wikis on all these elements (start with astatine, where it's a major part of the interest) you'll see the details. Some are referenced, but if Isaac Asimov said it, you can google it. SBHarris 19:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Shorter please

Any chance you can shorten your incredibly long statement on the RFC? Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. GRBerry 22:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Full note on Essjay below

Abbreviated one left;

Outside view by User:Sbharris; My own experience with Essjay (exec summary: very bad)

There are ordinary vandals and malicious people on WIkipedia. It reflects the real world, after all. However, my ONLY negative experience with a Wikipedia *administrator* to date, in all the time I've been here, has been with *Essjay*. Otherwise I wouldn't know him from Adam, Cardinal Wolsey, or Torqumada. Hence, this note. The full note is on my TALK page, as I've been asked to abbreviate here.

Introduction: I'm a scientist, basically-- an ordinary editor who first discovered Wikipedia in Nov, 2005 and by now has about 5000 edits on about 1000 articles (cleaning up and expanding medicine, chemistry, physics, history, and other stuff like that). I'm a physician with multiple qualifications and a long CV of science publications, academic positions, and a patent list, and all these are (ahem) real, not fake. I also edit under my real name (how many reading this have the balls for this?), as I have done so also for many years on USENET also. Where you can all anybody anything, and stalk them for nothing. And those credentials you're welcome to look up with the California Board of Medical Quality Assurance. (STEVEN BRADLEY HARRIS, MD G52760). I run a research lab for a living.

Soon after beginning editing here, as a newbie, I found myself locked out of Wikipedia completely, for participating in a legal discussion over what kinds of things can get people sued in the real world for libel. I hadn't made any threats myself (and indeed at that time was such a clueless newbie I didn't even know THAT was a no-no), but it didn't matter. I found myself blocked and locked out by some entity calling itselfs "ESSJAY". Here is his note and his reason, and the link [3], which you will find are all improper, and were promptly reverted by another admin who had found reason for a personal dislike of Essjay, to rival MY now-building one. In any case, in the maintime, I said: WHAT??? I found I couldn't even appeal about it on Wikipedia, due to the fact that blocks of this nature prevent you from even doing THAT. If you're blocked, you can't even appeal to ArbCom. You have to write email to JIMBO or the Lawyer BradPatrick or something. But once unblocked, I could take it to ArbCom. Where I did, and where it promptly died. Essay's just too powerful, they more or less let me know. He's on there, too.

Here's what Brad Patrick, the Official Wiki attorney, said about it, on personal email to me (paraphrase, since it was personal mail) "Wow, you certainly picked a really POWERFUL administrator to tangle with". By which time I'm now really saying to myself (and everybody else): "Who IS this ESSJAY GUY??" (actually, more like "WTF IS THIS GUY???"), Powers are *dispensed* by people like Wikipedia's lawyers-- they don't just take them as handed down from God. So I thought. So maybe this is Jimbo's father-in-law or something. I did a little checking and found Essjay flashed on the scene not that long ago, and was immediately given ranks and privileges and powers on Wikipedia at such an astounding clip (and he now has them ALL), that I figured he couldn't be anything other than a senior programmer or founder-still-in-good-graces with Jimbo. Wrong again.

When I see people promoted that fast, for no obvious reason, in any kind of normal non-public business, I assume they're sleeping with the boss. Or there's some relationship between somebody's proboscis and somebody else's alimentary canal which makes for poor respiratory function. But I had no way of knowing in this case, and gave up. Later (like everybody else), I read the NY mag which mentions Essjay as a new and shinny Big-Wig on Wikipedia, and assumed that Essjay's academic robes and caps (which he was incautious enough to claim in print to a reporter, as you see above) and gowns and chains and whatnot, had impressed and overawed everybody (particularly JIMBO) so much, that WikiMedia just had to call him to Rome/Florida and make him a "Cardinal."

Wrong, too, now, I see. So what gives? I still haven't a clue, although the proboscis theory is gaining.

Now, aside from Jimbo's publicity problem, what's Essjay's problem? It is this. He's an anonymous *&%$ with too much power, he got it too fast, and he's capable of abusing it. And nobody at Wikipedia really rides herd on him, as I find out from the pitiful note from Brad Patrick, obviously following Jimbo's lead. So. Here we are.

What do I WANT? I *don't* want Essay banned, as he tried to ban me. I believe in redemption. If he does good editorial work, fine. And if he's dishonest, that's his problem. Though personally, I really, really hate dishonesty and hypocrisy, as it can be the death of what I for a living in science. For Essjay and his presumably Roman Catholic God, maybe 10 Hail Marys and an Act of Contrition is enough.

But more than dishonesty, I hate the abuse of power, and the abuse of ways to attain it. If I caught one of my own employees with a lying CV and caught him abusing A VOLUNTEER by trying to lock him out (like the attempt to block me unilaterally and indefinitely, in Essjay's case), as the boss HERE in my fiefdom I'd make sure that first abusive administrator would be out the door so fast he'd have to be opening the locking bar with his butt, inasmuch as his arms would be full of his desk belongings he was holding with both arms, in the cardboard box he'd be carrying out, as I watched him go through the front building door on day #1. I make sure my employees don't abuse the staff, and I surely don't let them abuse newbies and volunteers. How Jimbo runs his business, is his problem. This is free advice, so take it for what it is worth.

What I WANT, therefore, is to see Essjay relieved of any power to block nameuser editors (vs. IPs and checkuser IP socks, which he's free to go wild with, for all I care). If you have a nameuser editor acting up, if he has good history, you have plenty of time for ArbCom. Thus, you don't need Essjay, and his bolts from the blue. (Nutshell: Nobody Expects The Spanish Inquisition, and Nobody Expects Essjay, either). Essjay's problem is that he just can't handle this with the delicacy he needs for it. IP vandals are one thing. Blocking a new username editor in violation of WP:AGF and certainly WP: DON'T BITE NEWBIES, let alone messing with WP policy on legal arcane-ia without consulting anybody, is quite another.

Now, I haven't gotten word one of apology from Essjay, nor from the people (Jimbo, Brian Patrick) who let him run roughshod on name-user editors. I don't expect one. Nor, in the circumstances, do I care if I get one now, since most of this is by now, in the nature of "sorry I got caught". But This note is to let you know I'm here. Until somebody manages to get me banned from Wikipedia permanently for speaking my mind, I'll be here, like the Recording Angel from Hell, every time Essay comes up. This was my worst experience on Wikipedia by far, and it is due solely to Essjay, and the people who are responsible for him, but don't watch him. And, yeah, almost a year later, I'm still really, really, REALLY angry about it. I don't get how people can engage in Wiki-stalking and other "meatspace" actions which happen for essentially cyberspace infractions. But after my interaction with Essjay, I suddenly, for the first time UNDERSTOOD it. If you've put a lot of work in, and you really haven't done anything to deserve that kind of treatment, you can see why people go off the deep end if you get removed from somebody's website. So my thanks for finally getting me to understand that. I'm a better editor for it.

And it's been worth my time to write, because I feel a lot better for giving my opinion on an admin who smelled bad to me, right from the very first electron of communication I got from him. If *this* letter has been too long (sorry!), my apologies for that. SBHarris 22:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you cut down your summary of your view on the RfC page? It is way too long for anyone to read, and thus it won't be taken seriously at the length it currently is. --64.230.124.21 23:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That's okay. Feel free to skip. It's what pagedown keys are for. If I cut it any more, people will be saying, "What exactly is his beef?". The issues are Essjay having too much power, too fast, and abusing it. THere are multiple claims he never has, and collectively they make up more text than mine. I tell a tale where he did. Don't read it if you don't want the details! If you want the synopsis, I just gave it to you. Feel free not to believe me. SBHarris 23:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I find myself fascinated and elated by this turnaround with Essjay and his *cough* resignation. I'm not normally one to gleefully gloat over someone else's comeuppance, but give how Essjay treated others and myself, I find that his disappearance is a net-positive for the whole project. That's not just in terms of his moving on, but in the new possibility that some control will be placed over the fiefdoms that rogue admins have created within the project. There's a lot that smelled fishy about Essjay, most especially his refusal to participate in the arbitration processes (I don't mean ArbCom, but things like AMA) that any honourable admin should be thankful for. So, goodbye to Essjay, hello to the possibility that I might actually participate in Wikipedia and enjoy it once again. --Kickstart70-T-C 01:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there was one specific incident I remember where an AMA issue involved Essjay and he basically told them they that since they had no authority or formal power, he wasn't going to pay any attention to them whatever; OIOW, screw you. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. SBHarris 02:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Beating dead horses

For good or for bad, he is gone. Getting sad or happy or even blaming others is not necessary. He is no more. You have had bad experiences? Well, it is up to you: forget and continue your life, stay clouded by "what ifs", stalk him. I don't care. Do you think you are the only one who has had a bad experience in Wikipedia? This is an optional place. If it hurts you so much, maybe you should take a break. -- ReyBrujo 18:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Same to you, buddy. Maybe it would help if somebody helped you take a break by blocking you for awhile. You seem to have a problem understanding things that didn't hurt you personally. I can't help you with that. Good luck with it. SBHarris 19:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Please help at User talk:Jimbo Wales. I've added some ideas there. Your input would be appreciated. WAS 4.250 21:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Boltzmann's constant

Sbharris: I want to avoid a revert of my revert in E=mc². Putting this message here on your talk page allows you to delete this message at your convenience. The Boltzmann constant simply relates temperature to kinetic energy. Nothing more. It has nothing whatsover to do with specific heat capacity or moles. The related formula (E_mean = 3/2K_bT) merely specifies how, for a bulk quantity of a substance, to apply the the constant to find the mean kinetic energy added by an increase in temperature. Technically, that formula is used to find the total kinetic energy in a substance given only its temperature in kelvins. However, it works fine to find an incremental increase in kinetic energy given a incremental increase in temperature. Greg L 05:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No. E_mean = 3/2K_bT specifies how much the mean kinetic energy PER PARTICLE of a substance increases due to an increase in temperature, provided energy partitions perfectly and all 3 modes of kinetic freedom are available to all particles, and so on. That number is about 2e-21 J/per particle per 100 K, which is about 2.3e-38 kg = 2.3e-35 g (the wiki text, obviously a bit of somebody's bad personal calculation, is off by an almost exact factor of 10, even with all the bad assumptions it makes). But this equation (which needs to be understood to be used) says nothing about how much heat it takes to heat a substance (which is what the text talks about), which heat in general will also depend on the many other ways a substance can store heat besides kinetic energy, in general as 1/2kT per mode, which includes potential energies in interatomic vibrations, etc. Electronic modes are exited at higher temps, but that also is dependent on the substance (in nitric oxide, there's a subtantial electronic component even at room temp). Only ideal gases increase in mass-energy that much (3/2 kT), per particle, per 100 C of temp increase-- everything else takes *more* (which means it weighs more), because the heat is not just stored as kinetic energy. And of course all the energy stored in heat counts in the mass of the object. If you heat a certain amount (number of moles) of water 100 C, it will weigh a good fraction more than heating the same number of moles of helium gas by the same temp. So, yes, it's all tied in with specific heat capacities.

Anyway, delete this incredibly bad sentence, which can't be fixed at all, as is, study your physics, and return wiser.

The bad sentence:

Raising the temperature of an object by 100 °C increases its mass by 2.3043 × 10^–36 g.

SBHarris 05:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, yeah, you're right on both counts You correctly found an order-of-magnitude error; the power should be 10^-35 for a 100 °C change. I originally had a 1000 °C change and “corrected” the exponent in the wrong direction in my head. The Boltzmann constant K_b value = 1.380 6505(24) × 10⁻²³ J/K relates thermodynamic temperature to the mean kinetic energy of the translational motions of its constituent particles per the following formula:

E_mean = 3/2K_bT

where…

E_mean = joules (symbol: J)

K_b = 1.380 6505(24) × 10⁻²³ J/K

T = thermodynamic temperature in kelvins

As such it’s a measure of kinetic heat (translational motion only), rather than total heat energy and therefore applies only to monatomic gases. I actually knew this at one point, (since I wrote it in Thermodynamic temperature), but missed the distinction while writing the sentence in question. The sentence applies only to monatomic gases and I've revised it accordingly (including the order-of-magnitude goof). Greg L 20:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to your post dated 22:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC), Blast. OK, I think I've got my mind (and what actually gets typed) straight. Do you approve of what I replaced it with? Of course, mass technically tracks internal energy (which includes the latent heat of phases changes that might ocurr as well and all othe forms of heat energy). I believe however, that the language, though simplified, is entirely true. Greg L 00:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Now you've got it! Your method this time is correct, and (what's more) I check your figures. 1.5 pg/K (= about 135 J/K) should be correct for that object (the international standard kg). And it makes a better example, too. So we're now both agreed, and happy (yes, if there were any phase changes, the mass would change as the heat kept going in, but the temp would not). SBHarris 00:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Differnces in the Wikipedias

Hi am from Germany and after the Essjay skandal i had a closer look on the english wikipedia and read your postings. The differnces are quite fascinating. The german wikipeda, the second bigest wikipedia in size, is ruled by experts. To proof my point have a look on homeopathy http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hom%C3%B6opathie#Kritik_an_der_Hom.C3.B6opathie in the german wikipedia chapter 5 is named Criticism 5.1 no proof of efficacy 5.2 no plausible mechanism 5.3 internal contradictions 5.4 dangers 5.5 miscellaneous criticism. This chapter has a very strong scientific POV and there is just one lousy weblink is in it as reference. If someone comes around in the discussion page and says: "hey this is POV!" the physicans will say: "So what?" and if he writes "There are no refernces in the critism chapter so i doubt it is correct." The physicans will say: "Well i am Physican i know that this is right, so you have to prove ME that it is not correct.". Also there is no need for consenses, the german wikipedia doesn't have that rule and in the AfD it is not a vote but an exchange of arguments and even if a majority like 70% says keep, the admin will delete the article if he is the arguments for deletion are stronger in his opinion. I wonder if germans tend to authoric systems more so that there wiki is authoric too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.133.146.6 (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Fascinating! I wonder if I shouldn't just transfer this comment to Jimbo's TALK page. SBHarris 03:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've read your comments, and those of User:Hillman on the affair and find myself in full agreement with what you have written. I am afraid that I doubt that you'll get very far in trying to promote a higher degree of competence in admins, although I'd encourage you to continue your campaign (such as it is). The root cause of the problem, it seems to me, is that, like politicians, the very people who put themselves forward for these positions should be disqualified as unsuitable per se. Presumably there is some specific psychological description of this malaise other than the more general Dunning-Kruger effect and the Superiority complex. Anyway, good luck and well done you for sticking to your guns.--Major Bonkers 12:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Medical transcription

i see that youre a licensed physician. maybe you can help us proofread the subject article. any change in context is highly appreciated. happy wikiying †Bloodpack† 20:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Another problem example

Anytime energy is added to a system, the system gains mass. For instance, lifting a one-kilogram mass upwards one meter against the force of one standard gravity increases its mass by 109.114 femtograms (1 fg = 1 × 10^–15 g).

There's a problem with this, and that is that it's not true! The energy is stored as potential in the system of Earth and mass as a whole, and not in the mass itself. So where exactly does this mass reside? Hard to say. Mass can be very tricky to locate, especially in g-fields. See mass in general relativity for some of the problems. In any case, if you actually do lift a 1 kg mass in Earth's gravity, nothing happens to the mass of the system at all. Since of course you just move mass from here to there, from the chemicals in your arm to the system of weight-raised-to-height. The gravitational field of the Earth as seen from a long way away, obviously does not change in processes like these (lifting things or avalanches, etc). Energy has to escape or enter the system for that. So, again a bad and wrong example for many reasons. SBHarris 21:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

“In any case, if you actually do lift a 1 kg mass in Earth's gravity, nothing happens to the mass of the system at all” No, that statement is not true. If it were, then why did you leave the one about hydro water? Matter going up or down: there's no difference. Matter falling into a gravity well looses mass. That's Einstein's way of looking at it. To the engineer, matter traveling closer to the center of the earth (or a floor) loses potential energy. The extent to which matter loses mass as it travels down a gravity well is equal to the potential energy lost as it does so. The reverse of this is matter gaining potential energy by being raised upwards (traveling upwards out of a gravity well). It's as valid for the kilogram weight going upwards as it is for water falling downwards. Greg L 05:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No, mass falling down a gravity well does NOT lose mass. If two masses come together, are you going to tell me which one of them looses the mass? Is it split according to their ratios? All this is bad thinking. The system loses the mass of the potential energy, IF it's radiated as heat (otherwise it's retained as heat, or retained before contact as kinetic energy). Otherwise, not. Where the mass assocated with the g potential is, before that, is up for grabs. Generally, it's usually regarded to be in the g-field, but it doesn't have a location. As for hydro power, no mass is lost or gained when water falls or rises, except as sunlight enters or leaves the system. That complicates things there, but not in the simple arm-raising the weight example, where the system is closed, and therefore mass-energy obviously is conserved and constant. SBHarris 17:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wyatt Earp

Hi, I noticed you did a lot of work on the Wyatt Earp entry. I seems to have been vandalized a lot recently. I am not very knowledgeable on the subject and can not make heads or tails of it. I would revert, but feel I could make it worse than what it already is. Thank-you, an annon user that doesn't want to screw things up.24.158.102.32 18:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Desysopping

If you'd like my admin status removed, you are welcome to open a Request for Comment, or a Request for Arbitration. Let me know if you need any assistance. As usual, I'll be busy editing productively, but I'd be happy to give you support. Cheers! alphachimp 13:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're thinking about compiling evidence about me, I'd suggest one of the two routes suggested above. I'm not going to apologize for blocking a vandal, and I'm certainly not "power-drunk". Seriously, I think it'd be far more productive for you to let this drop, but that's your prerogative. alphachimp 02:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What, are you (indirectly and unprovably) threatening me, now? If not, let me worry about what's a "productive" use of my time, okay? And by the way, if you still cannot recognize that this woman, who did what she did completely openly to her own bio, before fixing it, in order to prove a point, is NOT (in any sense) a "vandal," then you really do have a serious problem. Which is that you can't tell vandals from shinola. I'm not kidding. SBHarris 02:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I never threatened you. alphachimp 02:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted)Coincidentally, I'm really not being sarcastic in the offer to help you open any such request about me. I really feel that my actions were in the best interest of Wikipedia. I don't wheel war, but I sincerely think that she should have remained blocked. At a certain point, however, I feel issues like this become somewhat pointless to continue to discuss. It seems pretty clear that a lot of users disagree with me, and, although I still stand behind my opinion, I'm not going to pursue it to the ends of the earth. It's a mere technicality. I doubt she'll ever edit again.

Whether I'm a power drunk, abusive admin is an entirely different question. Although I feel no pressing burden to prove the depth and value of my contributions here to you, such accusations do stir up some degree of frustration. I welcome you to review my logs. I block anywhere between 30-100 vandals on a given weekday, revert several hundred edits, and operate two bots. If after reviewing that all, you still feel that I should be desysopped (or forced by arbcom/Jimbo to apologize), please open one of the aforementioned requests. alphachimp 02:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't need your HELP in opening a request in either of the above venues, thanks. You're the one who needs the help, inasmuch as you seem not to understand that we do not block REAL vandals indefinately without warning on Wikipedia, and THIS woman wasn't even a real vandal, but a newbie in violation of WP:POINT. If it takes a bunch of other people telling you this to make you realize that you screwed up here, then it will have to be that way. And opening this up for comment in one of the dispute forums seems to be the only way to make that happen. Too bad. Because you did well and truely screw up here. And I admit that you do have a fine edit history otherwise, from what I can tell. But that's not relevant, because I'm not trying to get you fired. I'm trying to get you to change your ways. Since otherwise you're likely to think it's perfectly fine for you to to do the same kind of thing again, to somebody else, without warning. Which cannot be allowed. Period. SBHarris 03:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I think alphachimp needs chilling out too. Please let me know if you do open an RFC on him because I also think he needs desysopping , as does any admin who indefinitely blocks an account for an isolated edit without warning or discussion. I don't know why he thinks his logs will be illuminating: do they show him often doing this kind of thing, and he's proud of it? Grace Note 00:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not sure I'd say that any admin who blocks an account in that way deserves desysopping, but any admin who reacts as badly as he did when called on it doesn't have the temperament to be an admin. Αργυριου (talk) 01:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all, glad to know I'm not nuts. I think I'll open a RfC so it doesn't look like I'm looking for some heavy pentalties. I'm just trying to get an intervention-group of a sorts going. You know-- where a bunch of people sit down with the alcoholic and tell him he's been really uncool? Until he finally gets it? SBHarris 01:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This sort of reaction is altogether too common among administrators when they do make mistakes, and is the thing driving my disenchantment with Wikipedia. Unfortunately, based on past experience, an RfC will probably go nowhere, as other administrators pile in to defend one of their own against the hoi polloi and tar the accusers as trolls and bring up every petty violation of Wikipedia's overly-complex rules by the accusers. It's possible that the celebrity and consequence of the actions in alphachimp's case make it more likely that *something* will happen, but I won't hold my breath. Αργυριου (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am really interested to hear all of your complaints/concerns about me. Why not just come over to my talk page and present me with an enumerated list? If you don't prefer that venue, I might just open up an RfC myself. There's no point in brooding over it. Let's get this out into the open. And no, that's not sarcasm. alphachimp 04:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh?

Im not entirely sure what you meant by your comment in Gold. What does the staff have something for me to do? Im lost! James Random

Nevermind. Forget I said it. SBHarris 21:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A controversial thought

Having previously discussed admin actions with you (Essjay, and now I see you involved in similar with alphachimp) that are perhaps less positive than I personally would like admin actions to be, I thought I'd bring this idea to you to see what you think.

Idea: Formation of a user-only (non-admin) committee-of-sorts to monitor admin actions and recommend changes to both the ways that admins who make aggregious errors are dealt with, and to the path users can take in dispute resolutions that involve admins.

Basically, 'WPAdminWatch' (I dislike that name, but will use it for the purpose of discussion), would have two mandates:

• Recommend actions taken when an admin breaks the spirit or letter of WP rules (apology, de-admin, de-sysop, block, etc.)
• Recommend streamlining and changes to the ways that users can dispute admin actions (shorten the time required to dispute admin actions, improve clarity of the path they should take, etc.)

Of course, me saying this, I expect some admins won't be at all happy with the concept and will fight it every step of the way. However, if done correctly and not with a hate-on for admins, this could be very constructive and well within the spirit of community in WP.

Your thoughts? --Kickstart70-T-C 19:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Might be helpful to have some kind of bitten-newbie-advocate group keyed to jump on these problems more quickly. From my perspective the worst problem of mauling of newbies by triggerhappy admins, is that blocked newbies often have no way to even ENTER the mediation process after that, except with a hugh handicap, since they are blocked from the mediation pages and ArbCom pages also. That was not intended and was a real oversight, I think, and needs correction at the software level. I mean, why would a REAL vandal, whose only intent is destruction, and who actually has no good point or improvement to make, even want to go to ArbCom? So what's the point in extending the block to there? This kind of inappropriate mauling thing (an indefinite block of a newbie without any or sufficient warnings) is seen only when there's some kind of real personality conflict, or some kind of subtle problem in the rules that actually NEEDS relatively quicker and wider attention from the wiki-community than does the average common obscenity-vandalism (which is, ironically, often far less harshy dealt with). So I'm all for any mechanism that helps identify this pathology, when it happens.

Personally, I'm off for a week to scuba with sea turtles in Hawaii, and if when I return I'm not unwound enough (and that should do it if anything could) then I'll start this process off myself, if somebody else hasn't done it before me. Meanwhile, don't mistake my silence for lack of interest. And feel free to start things yourself. SBHarris 04:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted response) Why not just follow the standard dispute resolution procedures? Try going to the admin's talk page. If you're not satisfied there, try bringing it before the community on WP:ANI, or, if you're more concerned, WP:RFC or any other step of Dispute Resolution. If you feel the problem presents an immediate issue, try WP:RFARB. We've got a really great system in place to deal with abusive admin actions, and, as a whole, our admin corps does a pretty good job volunteering to help here. True, we do make mistakes, but that is somewhat human. alphachimp 04:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.