User talk:Sbharris/archive6

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 #6 All messages from the beginning of March 27, 2008 though the end of 2008.

Heading off Wikidrama

Thanks for jumping in. WP:LAME - that's a good one ... I've never seen that page before.

Your attempt to read the whole thing and summarize the whole thing is impressive. Can I clarify a couple of points?

• I haven't been "in trouble for his students' IP edits before"; this is the first time. Although there was a minor process at the beginning of February when the Beach School page was speedied inappropriately - followed by a quick WP:AFD process - and the whole thing was simple, civil, and no one was in trouble.
• I didn't make a suggestion to the student to vandalize mainspace articles - there had been a discussion at school about Wikipedia and it's verifiability, and in it was mentioned that if someone wrote something that wasn't true - it would likely be changed very quickly. Vandalism wasn't discussed ... but I can see that WP:BEANS might be appropriate - just want to make it clear I never advocated vandalism - in fact I sat there and told him he shouldn't do that, and he would likely be blocked if he continued like that.
• "Okay, he should doubly know better than to let it happen." Your not likely to agree with me on this - but as The Beach School is a Sudbury School, the assumption is that the students and staff (not teachers, but staff) are all equals. I could no more stop him from vandalising the page, as I could stop a stranger in a library vandalising a page, if I noticed him doing it; were I to have intervened directly (by perhaps turning off the computer) I would have been subjected to disciplinary action. Now what I could have done, is file a complaint against him, that would be handled by the school's Judicial Committee - which would have likely have required him to apologise to User:Phillipe, or face further sanctions (which would quickly lead to suspension if he failed to agree). However, because it was clear that User:Phillipe jumped the gun on the indefinite block (or at least documented the reasons for it incorrectly), this avenue was closed to me, as all the student had to do was point this out to the Judicial Committee, and the case would have been thrown out. Even if User:Phillipe had just issued heavy warnings, or a 24-hour block, I could have taken it to our Judicial Committee (likely to have a warning made to the student) - but his going outside the norm, and not documenting it properly, eliminated that option. The parallels BTW, between how a democratic school (such as a Sudbury School) and Wikipedia operate are amazing! So while you feel that I perhaps should supervise more closely, I can no more to do, than can Jimmy Wales supervise his Admins more closely. (and yes, tire-tracks are a signficiant possibility - and it's no coincidence that Victor64 has had limits placed on his field trip activities :)!
• User:Victor64 and User:Tadan5 are different people.
• For the record, I'm not a teacher. Sudbury schools don't have teachers ... I'm a staff member, for now at least. In reality I'm on parental leave, spending a good chunk of my day at the school, helping my wife, and holding my baby. In real life I'm a professional engineer/geoscientist.

I'd appreciate if you could slightly modify your text based on my first couple of points above -the other two points are just FYI. I think that the various writings over the last month support what I wrote in my two points.

I'm curious that you saw this in WP:ANI. It's been archived for a month now - though perhaps you saw it in Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:LessHeard_vanU. Did I miss something? Is there another case running I'm not aware of?

Again, a good summary - and your likely right, we all have egg on our faces.

• I didn't mean you personally being in trouble, I meant the sum of (institution with you answering for something a 10 year-old had done) that got him autoblocked last February. It wasn't that civil-- you were claiming administrator abuse and wondering who runs the place. Well, a computer runs it, a lot of the time. Computers can't tell vandalism from 10-year olds mistakes from 10 year-old's vandalisms. And yes, for the record, your entire school's IP CAN get blocked for something one of your "co-equals" does. You may not think that's fair, but you don't run this place. Protection of the encyclopedia comes first, though school IPs are given traditionally a little more latitude. However, not infinitely.

  As for the rest, I'm at a loss to know how to answer. The reason that standard schools have "teachers" is that generally adults know more than children and almost always are more responsible and wise. Also, the reason adults (and the law) generally do not treat children as "equals" of adults, is the same reason. If you truly, as "staff," or even as an adult, cannot do anything more acutely about a student vandalizing a book in front of you at a school library, than you could with an adult doing the same at a public library, then you're in a perverted system indeed. If in loco parentis does not apply, then you're in trouble. If you handle the raising of the baby you just had that way, when he or she is 5 or 10, you will regret it mightily. But I will bet money that you won't (these theories don't survive practice). If we can't get past even this simple principle (and I see you're part of a whole system which actually pays lip-service to it), then we're just not going to be able to resolve this. I will observe that you're headed for trouble in more places than just Wikipedia, though.

  Yes, the problems with Wikipedia are multiple, and (if you must know) are of some of the same kinds as at your school, and due to some of the same systematic problems. The parallels are (ironically) deeper than you know. Everybody is theoretically an equal when it comes to editing articles here, and yet some people really are experts on the subject matter, and others are not (but think they are). This has historically led to more than one university professor getting booted off Wikipedia by a bunch of Philistine kids. (Also, one 25 year-old nobody administrator once pretended to be a tenured professor, and wasn't caught for some time). Power on Wikipedia is derived as much from time you've spent here, or who you know, and sometimes with what cliquish view you side with, and has less to do with your skills at communication or social interaction, or broad subject knowledge. You're just run into this yourself, so I hardly have to explain it to you. If you're expecting some kind of due process, forget it. There's a huge double standard for administrator action vs. editor action, and even if you have more experience than the administrator you happen to be disagreeing with, you'll just get a thumb-to-nose "I stand by my actions", and that's about it. You'll get nowhere with ArbCom, because the arbitrators are drawn from the same pool as the admins (it's nothing like your school judiciary). The only people who've ever been able to bend Wikipedia into doing anything they don't want to do, are people who control serious websites that can hurt WP. Or very rich people. One lady slept with Jimmy Wales, famously, but this only helped her temporarily, until it stopped.

  Anyway, your school sounds a bit like Lord of the Flies, and Wikipedia certainly has more than few problems of the same type, so you deserve each other, in a way. That's kind of what I said in my summary. I hope you don't tangle anymore, but I expect that's too much to ask for. Good luck, Mr. Phelps. SBHarris 03:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• • If you truly, as "staff," or even as an adult, cannot do anything more acutely about a student vandalizing a book in front of you at a school library, than you could with an adult doing the same at a public library, then you're in a perverted system indeed. In that case, then I could likely do something, as there would be permanent physical damage. Blanking a Wikipedia page can't be compared to vandalizing a physical book, as it would be (and was) completely fixed within seconds. Wikipedia has similiar events thousands, if not more, times a day - a comparable event in a library might be talking, or putting a book on the wrong shelf. One example at the school is climbing out a window - when staff (and other students) would take instant action so as to stop someone falling. in loco parentis does apply, but must be used carefully. And of course you wouldn't take these approaches with a child at home. The school is very much Lord of the Flies occasionally - but also is full of rules and structure imposed by the students themselves. Nfitz (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No, vandalizing Wikipedia is far worse than vandalizing a physical book, for many reasons. The least of them is that the act is amplified by computer duplication, and causes confusion for countless (literally countless) people who need a policy page or help page and find this is retarded before somebody fixes it. That's not the main reason, however. The main reason relates to why we don't criminally charge somebody who counterfeits a $20 bill, with "petty theft" on the grounds that they merely tried to steal $20 from the community by devaluing the currency by that much. The real problem lies in what happens if a lot of people did such things. And the fact that although what a single counterfeiter does may look easily fixable, or (in any case) of not much damage, the overall effect of many such people doing that results in huge amounts of effort and time spent in trying to detect such bills, and prosecuting and jailing counterfeiters. That's what is actually taken. The same thing happens to Wikipedia with vandalism, which "devalues the currency" of acticles and the encyclopedia itself, in somewhat the same way, and causes an amount of disruption which is hard to describe, and certainly hard to overestimate. It also makes administrators into ogres, and they tend to lash out at people far less innocent than you and your student (who are far from innocent). And THAT causes damage of its own, which somebody has to fix then (at great effort). I've already spent too much time on THIS case, and my time is worth at least what yours is (I promise). And it's cost you, too, although from your attitude, you may actually deserve what it costs you, since you don't seem to have gotten the lesson, yet. But keep trying. SBHarris 23:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think the time you've spent on this has been most valuable. I think your summary at least puts the entire thing in perspective for everyone - and seems to be keeping escalation in check. Attitude??? I've been trying to be quite contrite in this whole thing. Cost me - I have no idea what that means - apart from a few minutes here or there - cost Wikipedia perhaps, as I might have been fixing something (like the dreadful Via Rail article). Great effort? Of the two blankings, one was caught by a BOT in seconds - likely before anyone real actually saw it - and the other was simply reverted by pressing the Undo button. I'm not condoning this - but blanking a page isn't a capital offence - let's not overstate the case. A subtle mischievious edit to a page, that may not be caught for a long time, if far more serious. Ironically, and with complete innocence, Victor64 may have actually hit the nail on the head with his replacement content. But I don't have a desire to rehash this. Nfitz (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ironically, and with complete innocence, Victor64 may have actually hit the nail on the head with his replacement content. That earns you a :) . As with a few other of our "core policies." But let us not go there. Pax. SBHarris 05:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Peace

		The Barnstar of Peace
		I award you this barnstar for your very well worded write up of the altercation between Nfitz, Philippe and LessHeard vanU -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

For some reason I had the image of Gibbs slapping DiNozzo and McGee round the head when I read the summary of your write up! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you kindly. In more than 10,000 edits over more than two years, that's actually the first barnstar I have ever been given for a significant reason (I think I got another one once, for just existing). I've long since come to the conclusion that 98% of barnstars are given out as social signals, by WP social climbers, a lot like baboon-grooming. Some of the worst admins I've ever seen, have whole pages of them. But again, thanks for one that I'm certain isn't one of THOSE. SBHarris 17:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The award was 100% sincere. I like the "baboon grooming" phrase - I'd like to think that I've never been guilty of that. :-) -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 08:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandal Only Accounts

While I've basically said everything that I intend to say about the Nfitz blocking (I didn't support that) and the blocking of Victor (I've made my position clear), I did want to comment on one part of your statement on Nfitz's talk page. You said: FYI, there is no such thing as a Vandal Only account, and you got trapped in having to defend your terminology of something that isn't even a legality here.

There actually IS such a thing as a "vandal-only" account, with a template for it and a block code on Special:BlockIP. The template is located at Template:Vandalblock, and when blocking an account at Special:Blockip, "vandalism only account" is about the third option down. It's used fairly frequently. I don't dispute any of your other positions, and truly want to make no further comment on the case, but I did want to comment on what I believe to be a factual inaccuracy in your summary.

That said, I thought your summary was well written and thoughtful, while I chose to disagree with some of what you said. We don't have to agree, but I think admins in particular are charged with thoughtful consideration of feedback given, and I want you to know that I spent a good deal of time reading and thinking about yours. Best wishes. - Philippe 02:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, but I didn't say a vandal-only account was impossible or didn't exist, I said it didn't exist as a policy-concept (or that's what I MEANT to say, anyway-- but see above for what I actually wrote). However, I don't think you can judge "legality" i.e., policy, by which blocktags exist! Those things are made by artists of yesteryear, and nobody certifies them to conform to the exact letter of today's policy page. The policy page, as I pointed out, makes no distinction between accounts used "primarily" for vandalism, and accounts used "only" for vandalism. So what's the point of having two tags? Try to avoid the word "only" because it means just one thing, and if you're dealing with an account that has 41 edits and 40 of them are vandalisms, you in honesty shouldn't apply an ONLY tag until you've checked every last one of them, and why bother? Which was, of course, exactly the problem here, though we had only 2 out of 4 and that was starting to get to the border of many things (fraction AND numbers), which everybody pointed out. It was a crummy sample! They should retire that tag, because its existence just tempts admins to use it! You might recommend that. Or I can. Anyway, thanks for the note and I think this has been an interesting case for all, though wearisome. Obviously my opinion is that a temp block would have smoked out the trouble (and the teacher) just as effectively, and there are tags for that, too, and they are even better. SBHarris 03:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, in retrospect, I might have handled that situation better. As I said, I'm not inclined to go into any further discussion about those blocks, since I've said everything I have to say about them, but I'd like to propose a subject change. Would you be interested in being nominated for adminship? I've spent a bit of time reviewing your talk page archives, and it seems that you're not afraid to dive into controversial situations but have a level of logic to your arguments that I admire. I'd be pleased to nominate you if you wish. - Philippe 04:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit taken aback. Any RFA involving me would likely be ugly indeed, as I've stuck my nose into just about everything. And am feeling both a bit thin-skinned and ineffective at the moment (in a way that wouldn't change even if I was a sysop-- this place has systemic problems). Let me think about it. But thanks for the offer-- that's highly sincere and MOST appreciated. SBHarris 04:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it would be easy. You're right, it would probably be fairly contentious, and if it would upset you, then I absolutely agree that you should stay away. Life's not long enough to put yourself in situations that upset you. You certainly don't need me to tell you that it's easy to be a productive editor without being an admin. I've also been fairly open with my belief that the community needs agitators, and I tend to support them at RfA. Think about it. Take your time. If this isn't the right time, get back to me. I think, though, that any nomination that started with "I first met Sbharris when s/he was laying out criticisms of one of my admin actions..." is likely to meet with some interest. I don't offer to nominate very often, but people who speak truth to power and aren't afraid to take unpopular stands catch my attention and respect. Obviously, I can't promise it would pass. I can promise that I'd do everything in my power to defend you on it, but RfA can be an extremely unpleasant situation. Mine was fairly uneventful, but I've seen better people than I pummeled at RfA. In any case, please accept my very sincere thanks for the role that you play in this commmunity - even when you're criticizing me. Maybe especially when you're criticizing me. - Philippe 04:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You made my day, even if I don't. :)) SBHarris 04:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC).

That wasn't my intent, but I'm pleased to hear it. First and foremost, we write an encyclopedia. But the thing I love about this community is that we can be just that: community. Even with those whom we sometimes disagree. I'm off to bed now. Think about my offer. If you want to speak privately, you can email me at philippe.wiki (at) gmail.com. Best wishes. - Philippe 05:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Edits to Wikipedia:Perennial proposals

Without addressing the validity of the citations, I figured it was worth it to say that I didn't add them, I just put them in footnote format. They've probably been there since the page was created. But while there are compelling and uncompelling arguments both for and against banning anonymous editing, the fact remains that such a change will never occur. And while there are a good number of editors who advocate an "all users must register" policy, it remains "perennial" solely because it ain't gonna happen. As far as those cites go, remove them if you want. Maybe we should discuss more convincing arguments. szyslak (t) 04:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I got fooled by the diff AND the "site accessed" dates, which are April 2, 2008 (still today for me at 2200-- I must be someplace 7 hours to the West of you, which puts you on Zulu/GMT time, so you must be in England or so), so you must have reformated AND re-dated.

If the change is never going to occur because Jimbo is agin' it, and he's never going to change his mind, I suppose coming up with better arguments and better studies is a waste of time, eh? But this doesn't speak well of Wikipedia. It's a poor system indeed that regards its own rules so highly as never to be subject to ammendment. SBHarris 04:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm in California. I've always based the "access date" on the server time, which is GMT/UTC. I marked the access date as the last time I accessed the pages, to show that the links were still good as of that date. But yeah, even though I don't agree with banning anonymous editing, I'm not sure it's such an important principle it should be at the Foundation level, but that could always change. Opponents of IP editing are free to email Board members and call for a policy change, or maybe someone could run for the next open seat on the Board on an anti-IP platform. On the subject of whether it's an appeal to authority, doesn't that also apply to any policy that came down from Jimbo or the Board, such as BLP and OFFICE? szyslak (t) 09:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Doc question

I could ask either of my sisters but they almost always give opposing answers. You self-identify as a physician too, but you're also a Wikipedian, could you comment on this and/or direct me to a relevant authority? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Most healthy people can get along at 18,000 ft with no exertion (half normal air and thus oxygen pressure), but they need to accomodate. The FAA thinks normal people pass out in 30 min at 18,000 ft (I'm sure that isn't everybody), but they make pilots use O2 at altitudes above 12.5 - 14,000 ft for more than 30 min. And above 14,000 pilots all the time, and passengers above 15,000. [1]. So if we use the 14,000 ft limit (less than Pike's Peak in the US!), that gives us 57% of normal or equivalent of 12% O2. 18,000 ft is 10.4% O2. Somewhere in there is the danger zone for "sudden" unacclimatized hypoxia and loss of ability to think clearly. Of course, people have climbed Everest without O2 at the equivalent of 6.5% O2 or so at sea level-- but that would kill you within minutes if you tried that unadapted.

Now, as for mechanism. CO2 sensors do make you breathe, so you continue to breathe in any non-irritating atmosphere, including inert gas, N2, or hypoxic mixes. Nitrogen doesn't saturate any receptors. Instead, what happens is this: humans don't have very good "low O2" sensors. Unlike burrowing animals and diving animals, we don't sense low O2 very well, directly. Thus, there is very little if no sense of discomfort or warning for atmospheres which are low in O2, but ALSO normally low (or zero) in CO2. That's what happens at sudden high altitude, or in nitrogen. It can also happen in scuba rebreathers when the oxygen isn't flowing-- the CO2 is scrubbed out, but no O2 replaces it, then the O2 level in the mix goes down and down and the diver doesn't notice till they lose consciousness (this is usually fatal, but I've seen one guy survive when it was noticed that he was just floating on the bottom unconcious, and one of his students got him to the surface). This is probably the most common rebreather fatality, and has happened to at least one Nobel Prize winning nuclear physicist! You might have seen Dr. Jonathan Miller actually do this experiment on himself in The Body in Question series in 1978. He lost consciousness without ever feeling short-of-breath. It's what happened to the NASA guys.

Now, what does it look like? Well, the unconscious person continues to breathe for a while before the hypoxia stops even that, so if they are returned to normal O2 within a certain time, they spontaneously wake up. If they quit breathing, or go to agonal gasping, they'll need artifical respiration to recover.

If they go to actual cardiac arrest, they'll need full CPR and may or may not spontaneously restart their hearts when oxygenated blood is delivered to the coronaries (this happens more likely with children). Adults often need a heart shock as well, since they'll be in ventricular fibrillation. What the limits to how long this can go on? Once the heart stops it's the standard 4-6 min before permanent brain damage in adults, even with resuscitation. 10 if you're very, very lucky but odds are against you. If you saw resuscitation after drowning scene in The Abyss you get the idea. Post-resusciation treatments like brain-cooling and chemicals show promise, and dogs have been resuscitated to normal after 15 minutes of cardiac arrest. One day people will, too SBHarris 21:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

SBH, thanks much, for your detailed reply here and at kwami's page. I'm still confused about that training at Texaco Port Neches where I could have sworn they specifically mentioned breathing cessation. It was an industrial death investigation so I'm sure they based it on something, but I've looked for a long time for confirmation (since 1994) and never found anything. Incidentally, I have a strong suspicion that the accident is referred here, "In one incident, a worker mistakenly used nitrogen...".

Another question: if nitrogen is so effective, why isn't it used instead of CO2 in humane killing of research animals? That was my first thought when I read this. I can email you the article if you don't have a Nature subscription.

Anyway, thanks for your input! Franamax (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to see the cite. Of course, after you're unconscious you do stop breathing soon (with pure nitrogen or helium in a minute or two). Then your heart stops 10's of seconds to some minutes after that. A lot depends on how much oxygen is left in your lungs when you quit breathing. Your heart gets slower and slower, but works at very low oxygen concentrations for some time. Which is why it can take 20 minutes for a hanged person to go to cardiac arrest.

The reason nitrogen isn't used for euthanizing research animals but (like helium) works great on people, was alluded to above. Rabbits and rodents come from burrowing traditions, and have great hypoxia receptors. They go crazy with a feeling of suffocation in low oxygen atmospheres. I once tried to euthanize a rabbit with nitrogen and never will again. Humans evolved from primates that spent so long in trees that none of them have much carotid body function, although enough remains that (most) people are still able to adapt slowly to high altitude conditions by breathing faster (this makes it hard to sleep-- oxygen on Everest is useful mostly so climbers can get some zzz's). For that reason nitrogen has been seriously suggested (some guy actually wrote a BOOK) as a replacement for hydrogen cyanide in gas chamber executions. Only conservatism has prevented the changeover in states that still use a gas chamber.

Incidentally, pure CO2 breathing is a quick but miserable way to die, as it feels like you have acid gas from a sodapop belch up your nose. But the narcosis effect renders you unconscious in less than a minute of that. However, it must be an uncomfortable minute. Lab researchers who use it on rodents have probably never stuck their heads in a cloud from a dry ice bucket. I have, and it's no fun. A better gas alternative, which is what I use, is overdose of standard inhaled anesthetics like Isoflurane. SBHarris 04:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your response. kwami (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Electron ring theory and Bohr model

This is to express my agreement with your removal of the electron ring theory from the Bohr model page. Although Bohr does refer to that theory, published by Nicholson in 1912, serious objections are raised by him, and the theory does not play any further role in Bohr's paper. For this reason it seems preferable not to let the electron ring theory interfere with the Bohr model, and ask its supporters to open a separate Wiki page.WMdeMuynck (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong e-mail address

Hi. Can't seem to send to sbharris@9.netcom.com; I received a message saying "The destination server for this recipient could not be found in Domain Name Service (DNS)"...

Can you please post a valid address? Goncaloelias (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Instead of a 9, put in IX (a Roman 9, as I instructed). I don't want to post the whole thing, as webcrawlers mine these things.SBHarris 00:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Coriolis

Um, I think you seem to be adding to the confusion in centrifugal force, it's easily done. Coriolis force is one of two inertial forces that appear in a rotating frame of reference that if you integrate them up, are necessary to give correct motions in the rotating frame that agree with the motions you can calculate from Newton's laws in an inertial frame for the same thing.

It's not necessary for the objects that coriolis is applied to be actually rotating, only that they must be moving in the rotating frame of reference. The force is -2 m w x v. As you can see, it's a vector at 90 degrees to the motion and the frame's rotation vector 'w'. There's a proof in fictitious force#Rotating coordinate systemss.

You said: "a tangential force which arises from radial motion in any way that does not preserve angular momentum"

Careful here. For example an object flying off tangentially from a circular motion that happened to be stationary in the rotating frame is conserving angular momentum (it's just mv*r in fact, since there's no external force) (at least in the inertial frame where it is a straight line motion) but is very definitely subject to coriolis in the moving frame (it curves backwards as it moves outward under centrifugal force). Also a stationary object in the inertial frame apparently orbits the axis in the rotating frame and conserves angular momentum in both frames, but again, is very definitely subject to coriolis (the centrifugal force pushes outwards, but the coriolis cancels it out and pushes it inwards and holds it in a circular motion- it is the centripetal force from the point of view of the rotating frame).- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm. I'm going to redact my comments until I think about this some more. Thanx. SBHarris 03:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sbharris,

Most of what you posted (and then retracted) was right, but the stuff about Coriolis was not. Radial motion is not necessary for Coriolis force--tangential motion does it too. This is kind of a common misconception, since it's easier to visualize the source of the force for radial motion. Also, your description of needing to supply a force to keep something rotating at a constant angular velocity as its radius increases is right, but that force is not the Coriolis force, it's a force you must apply to balance the Coriolis force. Glad to have your help. Rracecarr (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've since gotten the correct derivation with the cross product, and see that (indeed) any velocity-component in a rotating frame, except that along rotation axis, will produce Coriolis force ("C force,") and not just radial motion velocity. In fact, tangential velocity will do it, so long as you "see" it in the rotating frame, and the cross product then gives a force which is (ack!) inward, radially. So that force does indeed supply the "missing" centripetal force in a rotating frame view, which keeps a simple inertial ball moving circularly, when you happen to view it from a rotating frame placed somewhere other than where it is. In that case, the fictious C force supplies the "centripetal-like" force, which needs to be twice the centrifugal force, which is (also) of course still present in a rotating frame, and acting to drag the object radially outward. That centrifugal force is mrω². There is no true centripetal force (no gravity, no string). To counter centrifugal F AND explain why the ball is moving circularly, even with nothing tangible pulling (neither string nor gravity), you need a 2mrω² pseudocentripetal force to make it circularly accelerate. And the C force provides this (2m ω x v = 2mωv = 2mrω²). The explanation in the C-force wiki is actually clever and needs expanding.

One problem in going through this, is that we don't really have a good word for the other component which counteracts the tangential C-force that arises from a bead sliding down a rotating stick. That bead feels a C-force dragging it back. This needs to be countered by the stick. For centrifugal force we have a name for the counterforce when we employ it to keep things pinned down radially in the rotating frame, and we call it centripetal force. But we don't have a good name for the countering force to the C-force which keeps things pinned down to the same radial line in a rotating frame (as a bead on a stick) when moving radially. We need a word, here. SBHarris 03:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't listen to them. Follow the derivation carefully and it is clear that the Coriolis force only acts on radial motion. The derivation involves an angular velocity ω which is that of the particle. In the limit, we get a tangential velocity rXω and so the velocity in the Coriolis term must be radial.118.175.84.92 (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Except for a little problem. They're right ;). See above. The ω is in the direction of the rotation axis (and angular momentum vector). For a tangential V vector, the direction of ω x V is radially inward (you have 2 directions, and this is the only one that is orthogonal to both!). Work it out with your right hand thumb rule. The Coriolis Wiki is actually quite enlightening when you work through it. That cross-product really works in two dimentions, and you (and I) have been neglecting one of them. SBHarris 03:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

sbharris, I hadn't overlooked that at all. Look at the actual derivation. Consider the vector triangle from which the derivation is based. The velocity of the particle is split into two vectors. One of those components becomes ωXr in the limit as it tends to zero. Hence it must be tangential. And hence the other component must be radial.

If we look at the expression in isolation, yes, we have total freedom to decide which direction v is in, in a plane perpendicular to ω. But we are already restricted to a tangential direction by virtue of the original derivation.118.173.15.142 (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

However, if we start with the velocity vector without reference to polar coordinates, we obtain a term vXω which doesn't restrict the direction of v. That term is the parent term of both the Coriolis force and the centrifugal force. It in turn can be split into two mutually perpendicular terms. A Coriolis term which is a tangential deflection on a radial motion, and a centrifugal term which is a radial deflection on a tangential motion.

But we can never have centrifugal force and Coriolis force acting in the same direction. 118.173.15.142 (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The derivation of C-force is free. There is nothing to limit it to only radial v and no tangential v. Each one gives its own component of C-force, and each one NEEDS to. In a rotating frame, if you see something move radially at v, you need an additional force to explain why it moves backward (or else why YOU need to keep it on the radial line if you don't LET it move backward, as our ring sliding outward on a stick). You understand this.

But now let's take the odd case of a rotating system with a centripital force you can't get away from, like two balls on a string. Now choose a rotating frame which makes the objects move tangentially in a circle at constant r, rotating FASTER than we chose to have our rotating reference frame move. Which can easily happen (okay, we just didn't choose the reference well, but that shouldn't matter). In the situation where we did chose well, and had frame to rotate exactly as fast as the particle, it doesn't move tangentially OR radially. The absense of radial motion we ascribe to a fictious centrifugal force which balances our centripetal force. Again you get this. Thus, no radial acceleration in the rotating frame.

But (again) suppose we slow our reference frame rotation rate so the body is now moving tangentially, so we see it circling, now, even though it's the same physical situation? Now, we have no choice to explain its circular motion spacial acceleration even in our rotating frame, but now seem to lack any new (radial) force to explain this new acceleration. Well, the C-force explains it-- it's a new centripitally-directed force which appears with the frame choice change where we see the frame objects now move tangentially (it disappears if we choose the frame so the objects don't move). You have the same total "inward radial" force as before, because you feel the same string tension (that's a constant no mater what rotating frame you choose). The centrigugal force decreases, because that force is only frame and position-dependent (mrω²) and it doesn't care how fast the object moves tangentially-- all it sees is the same r and a decreased ω (our frame rotation rate, not the object rotation rate). Indeed if we slowed ω to zero, centrifugal force would cease! Since the new total inward force must be constant, but centrifugal F slacks off, we must supply a new force in the radial inward direction, and that's the radially inward C-force. No, it does not act in the same direction as the centrifugal force-- it acts in the exact opposite direction, and supplements the centripital force. As I said, something must, since the object is going faster in a circle and without the C-force, we have no force to explain this motion.

SBHarris 17:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

sbharris, You say The derivation of C-force is free.

Have you looked at the derivation? It centers around a vector triangle in which the two shorter sides route an actual particle velocity through a point on an imaginary rotating frame of reference. The expression ωXr for the velocity of one of these two components only applies in the limit when it is purely tangential. Hence the other component, which represents the velocity of the particle relative to the rotating frame, must be radial.

When we reach the final expression, the Coriolis term ωXv, it would indeed be allowed to take on any direction in a plane perpendicular to ω if v was free. But v is not free. It is restricted by the derivation to only being a radial velocity. David Tombe (talk) 04:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are two derivations: [2] is the arXive Euclidian, and [3] is a standard one. In neither one is the approximation you mention made. The velocity vector is completely general and free. BTW, the centrifugal force in both of these is seen to be a vector quantity also, but this is usually not a problem since the direction of the radial vector to the rotating particle is generally defined to be the shortest one orthogonal to the rotation axis, so that ω X (ω X r) = ω²r (unit vector in the radial direction). The last paper has a good analysis which should benefit you, including a merry-go-round example: a quote: The radial Coriolis force associated with azimuthal motion is much like an increase or slackening of the centrifugal force and so is not particularly difficult to compensate. However, the azimuthal Coriolis force associated with radial motion is quite surprising, even assuming that you are the complete master of this analysis. Heh. Which apparently you aren't, yet. SBHarris 05:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

SBharris, I have just looked at both of your links. In both cases, contrary to what you say above, the derivation requires that the term $\mathbf {(\Omega \times r)} \,$ only applies in the limit. In the former paper (arXive) it occurs at equation (13). In the latter paper (J price) this is clearly stated in the last sentence of the wording beside fig. 5 on page 14 of the pdf file.

This means that the $\mathbf {(\Omega \times r)} \,$ term must be exclusively a tangential term. Hence the other v term in the Coriolis force must be a radial term. In other words, these transformation equations only apply to co-rotating radial motion such as would occur if an object were to be constrained to move in a radial groove on a rotating turntable. David Tombe (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to Serotonin on 05:03, 26 November 2007

You have added to the Serotonin page a section called "Chronic diseases resulting from serotonin HT-2B overstimulation". Please cite references for this as if this is true it has real-world implications for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.12.253 (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. You specified on my talk page that this is original research but offered a compelling case considering there are references to support what the argument is based upon. I imagine then, that the only question is how much does 5-HTP raise blood 5-HT levels; if it is a great deal then unless 5-HTP itself has some unforeseen preventative effect you are obviously right. Thanks. If you are right, you may have saved a few lives today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.12.253 (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Very nice Atom article fixup

It's a pleasure editing with you; you do all the hard work! SBHarris 02:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!—RJH (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I am confused...

OK, now we got Foggy brain and Mental confusion...merge somewhere methinks? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Foggy brain even an article, seeing as how it's redlinked? I think it should be a one-line redirect to mental confusion, since it's simply a colloquial term for it. Matter of fact, I think I'll do just that. SBHarris 23:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hah. It was speedied after I posted a note to you. So no worries there :) Now question is Mental confusion vs. organic brain syndrome. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I already weighed in on that. Mental confusion may be a temporary phenomenon, and is just a set of symptoms. Organic brain syndrome is a set of pathological physical brain diseases, and generally is permanent (although it's not defined to be, so it covers both delirium from physical causes AND dementia). Think of mental confusion as being like shortness of breath. There doesn't necessarily have to be something wrong with your lungs (organic lung disease, if you will) for you to be short of breath, though there COULD be. That's the difference between mental confusion and organic brain disease. You might ask-- well what the heck kind of brain disease is NOT organic?? Fair question. The term was invented to differentiate from mental disease, which we assume is located in the brain, but we can't FIND the obvious "organic" (physical) cause for it. Whether there is one sometimes or always, is a bit of philosophy and takes us to the distinction between software and hardware. But anyway, that's the history behind the term "organic" disease here. It means as opposed to "purely mental" disease. SBHarris 00:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Tricky then - acute confusion=delirium, chronic=OBS...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Close. We really need a Venn diagram. Delirium is defined to be physically caused, so mental illness can cause short term confusion, but in that case we (arbitrarily) define this is as not being a delirium, but rather a symptom of mental disease. Also, there are "physical" causes of delirium which are usually not thought of as OBS-- such as delirium from four days of no sleep, or from great pain, or grief, or some other stress (even a viral infection). OBS usually is spoken of as resulting from some gross and permanent structural defect, like being shot in the head, or getting many strokes, or Alzheimers disease.

Finally, even symptom-wise confusion is not quite the same as delirium, although they share some symptoms (overlap). See the two Wikis. You can be delirious without being confused (as when you can't concentrate from pain, but still have no delusions or orientation problems). All short term confusion from physical causes would quality as delirium, but not the other way around. One is a subset of the other. SBHarris 00:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Cat-Women of the Moon

While I appreciate your messsage, you have thrown in the "kitchen sink" in the article, items which I do not think belong. More to the point: should every article include a section named: Related films in the same genre? No I think not! Luigibob (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's a short genre, yes. There are many ways to do this. For example, figure skating films have their own category [4]. That could be done here. If you go to the Wiki on Caveman, you'll actually find a list of caveman films as cultural references, since there aren't that many of them. Information should be there for people who want find it. If you don't like it, skip it! If you want to put it in an internal reference to a separate list, that also is okay. Just don't delete with no trail. People who read about the genre are going to want to find out the names of other films in it. You haven't even given them a breadcrumb trail to follow. Worse, you didn't even include the title of the film which was a later remake of THIS one! SBHarris 23:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Rube Goldberg page

Wikipedia is not a "collection of links" - the links had been removed for sometime and he stated himself he wikified those for purely spiteful reasons when he has no intentions of making the pages. This is a ludicrous abuse of power by Gamaleil in an attempt to "annoy" someone for his own personal reasons. Can we instead be above this and do what's best for the encyclopedia? Clearly they had been removed for a reason, and he didn't add them for any good reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.40.194 (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dr. Love Monkey

Hi, the block worked fine. S/he was blocked on 15:21, July 14, 2008 and the edits stopped. The talk page was protected because this vandal abuses the talk page too. Spellcast (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

But what's the point of blanking the TALK page and THEN protecting it? Of what possible use to anyone is a blank protected page?? Leave the record of the blocks and warnings on the page, and protect THOSE, so other people can SEE that something has been done about the vandal. Instead of wasting their time like I did! SBHarris 20:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This vandal, who has many sockpuppets, fills the talk page with lots of code to make your browser crash. There's no need to keep these kind of pages which would end up deleted anyway. Spellcast (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, Sam4bc (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm Back!

I wonder if Stan Primmer will ever return to Wikipedia, after the newbie being bitten...Ryoung122 05:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for opinion

Hi Steven: A page I have worked on is up for deletion as a content fork. I don't believe it is a fork, and even if it is, I don't believe deletion is the answer. Will you kindly take a look at it, and possibly render an opinion? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centrifugal force (planar motion) Brews ohare (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a revised version removed from the subject of centrifugal force; please comment. Brews ohare (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Atom

Hello,

I'm not sure if you are aware of this or not, but a featured article that no longer meets the FA criteria can become demoted. In particular, criteria 1(c) requires valid references. Thus, if the atom article continues to accumulate unsourced material, it may lose its FA status. This is something that I'm hoping to avoid, so I've been trying to keep everything ship-shape by monitoring it regularly and supplying fixes where needed. I would greatly appreciate it if you please supply proper references when you expand the atom article. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I've been thinking about your question about a real physical model of OO7N14 (with a spin of +1) and I'd like to provide the following: Since there are only 2 kinds of spin, namely + spin and/or - spin, and since there are two kinds of directions, namely up or down, I'd like to adopt the convention of using an arrow to indicate spin, with an up arrow indicating up or + spin and a down arrow indicating - spin, Am I restricting myself by that? Anyway to discuss the models it is necessary to start at some understandable point and then proceed to the point of discussion. So let's start with EE6C12 with spin zero, which my models show as being a EE4Be8 nucleus, with two alpha particles held together by two deuterons. Now when we add a nucleon to that the spin data shows a - 1/2 spin regardless of whether we added a proton (to make OE7N13) or a neutron (to make EO6C13), and then to make OO7N14 we have to add a neutron (and + 3/2s of spin) to get from OE7N13 to OO7N14, but only add a proton (and + 1/2 of spin) to get from EO6C13 to OO7N14. So there are 2 ways to get from EE6C12 to OO7N14 and only one works within the 1/2 spin increment limit involved in adding a nucleon to a nucleus, which is the way I like to expand the models. I would think that this drastic variation in incremental spin values should be explainable, and I'd like to hear an explanation of how the spin of EO4Be9 (with spin - 3/2) can change to that of OO5B10 (with spin + 3) due to the addition of 1 proton. And my view of the process of nuclear accumulation carried out by the growing nucleus is that from an A=2Z EE condition it first accumulates a neutron into a position of minimum dynamic instability, and then chooses between an additional proton (to make an additional deuteron), or an additional neutron (to dynamically balance the previous neutron). I would appreciate your further comments.WFPM (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)WFPM (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC).WFPM (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Diderot

After reading in you about Diderot I would like to propose to you that Man is an animal with 5 sensory organisms, Plus a developed "communication" organ that allows him to expand the problems of the world no end. Because it allows the transmission and magnification of the importance of so called "facts" and "opinions" from the primitive tribal level to the level of being important to important elements of society like societies and nations. But that's supposed to be progress. Do you think so? WFPMWFPM (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

In a way. All animals model the world in their brains, but none can communicate that model to another of their kind, with the possible rudimentary exception of the bee dance. And what do we do with that? The hive shows a sort of primitive collective intelligence because of it. The real problem is that so much of what makes humans different is an emergent property, which comes as a result of language, and secondarily, writing. Deprive humans of all culture and you get little more than animals, with quite animalistic behavior. So what makes humans "human" at this point, is mostly software. SBHarris 00:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

= I've been involvrd in a discussion with LaPella about how maybe what we're actually doing is piddling around in irrationalities while we're developing a much more rational process of thinking and communicating in boolean algebra and binomial math called "computer programming", which allows discussion but requires rationality and consistency of concept and limitation on mathematical extrapolation of ideas to the discrete properties of natural processes. And doesn't propose to start something by creating it out of nothing, or of a concept of "instantaniety", and thus could maybe help us with our problems of managing the admittedly large number number of variable things and processes that we have to deal with in the world in which we live. But he says he doesn't trust the computer to think, just to calculate, because society wouldn't accept it as a "recognized authority", and prefers to manage by consensus, which is then biased in favor of whatever power structure that happens to be handy, like in politics. So we've got the same problems now as we did in Plato's time and many more people to deal with. Will we figure it all out?. And in time before it"s too late. WFPMWFPM (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC) :Could I interest you in looking in my talk page at a section about "Irish current" and telling me if you can make any rational sense out of the chemistry of what I'm being told. It may be a spoof but on the other hand it may have a relationship to some old chemical process for a hallucigen. What do you think? WFPM (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Iron oxidation state in oxyHb

Do you have a reference for the claims made on the Hemoglobin page regarding Fe3+ vs Fe2+? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.44.45 (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, which I'll add. http://www.ul.ie/~childsp/CinA/Issue65/TOC28_Haemoglobin.htm. Basically, all the evidence points to oxyhemoglobin being a complex of low-spin Fe(III) and superoxide. The oxygen bond order is 1.6 by IR, meaning it's been nearly reduced to superoxide, and the whole complex is diamagnetic (no net spin) which can only happen if the single unpaired electron on O2.- pairs with the single unpaired electron in low spin Fe(III) by a long distance ferromagnetic interaction, giving the whole complex no net spin. The standard idea of a paramagnetic neutral O2 paired with low spin Fe(II) (diamagnetic) would produce a net paramagnetic HbO2, and it isn't. SBHarris 04:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Fluorine

Basically, I could insert other things, such as how wonderful a surfactant PFOS is, and how wonderfully toxic perfluoroisobutylene is, but I haven't. You don't see the same problem I do? That the page is too heavily weighted to organofluorines instead of fluorine itself? Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, take a look at how the other element article are done-- say nitrogen. We could have chosen to make them entirely about the free element, but instead these articles also include surveys of all the uses of the element. I wouldn't object if you split off a section explicitly on uses of elemental fluorine, as has been done in most of the other element articles, of course. And there probably should be a mention of PFOS in the fluorine article, given how widespread it's use is, and how much of a problem it's getting to be. I've sprayed it on may a boot, and wonder now how much I breathed, and if it matters. SBHarris 03:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of notable people who wore the bowler hat

I have nominated List of notable people who wore the bowler hat , an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable people who wore the bowler hat . Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. MickMacNee (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wiki-anonymity

I just read your user page.

I guess in your book, because I use a nym, that makes me a "wiki-chicken".  :)

But when your friends and relatives are as whacked out as mine, using a nym is a necessity, to protect the wiki-community from the wiki-drama they would no doubt bring here.

They make my enemies look like angels. But I wouldn't want them following me here either.

Everyone has skeletons. It's best to keep them in the closet where they belong. This helps keep the ad hominem justifications to a minimum.

And embarrassments.

For example, let's say you go through a nasty divorce, and your ex plasters your talk page with all your dirty laundry and a bunch of lies. But she couldn't do that if she didn't know your wiki-identity.

By the way, here's a cute article on a related topic: On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.  :)

Wiki-anonymity is also a good idea for security reasons. If "they" know who you are, and you don't know who "they" are, "they" can find you, and you may never see "them" coming.

But there are other benefits. Users tend to be more daring (confident, bold) when they are anonymous, because any damage done is likely to stay contained on the wiki and not bleed over into their "real" lives. On Wikipedia, bold is good. The practice one gets being more confident here can in turn spill over into an editor's real life and benefit him or her in general.

Adopting a new name is an opportunity to reinvent yourself and improve your self image. A nym can be a powerful symbol in that regard.

I'm sure there are other benefits, but these are the ones I'm aware of.

I just felt like sharing my thoughts on this with you.

I hope you found them entertaining if not stimulating. :)

The Transhumanist 19:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Lists vs. categories conflict

I don't worry too much about this, as AfDs are a bloody waste of time, and the number of lists just keeps growing regardless of what they hack away. Along these lines, my main approach is to create as many useful lists as possible as quickly as possible, which helps offset any damage the list detractors may do at AfD.

Right now, along with a team, I'm working on 247 new lists - one for every country of the world. They're hierarchically structured lists, so we're calling them "outlines".

They are part of the "Outline of knowledge" we're building for Wikipedia.

You're welcome to join in on the fun. Currently it's being organized from my talk page, with tasks posted on the various other participants' talk pages.

Just let me know if you are interested, and I'll bring you up to speed.

The Transhumanist 19:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Some other possible approaches to protect lists from category-bias

Create a guideline called Wikipedia:Redundancy to point out acceptable redundancies on Wikipedia. There are other redundancies besides nav-features, that is, there are redundancies in article content as well.

Address the relationship between lists and categories in the various deletion instructions pages, with a prominent link to WP:CLN and Wikipedia:Redundancy. Users, especially new users will then become more aware of these guidelines and the relationship between cats and lists.

Improve the coverage of the relationship between categories and lists in the Wikipedia:Categorization guideline. Specifically, change the heading "Categories vs. lists vs. navigation templates" ("vs." implies conflict) to "The relationship between categories, lists, and navigation templates", and summarize it better there. Also add a section summarizing and linking to Wikipedia:Redundancy.

Revamp Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists to better organize the development of lists.

Modify Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists' banner Template:WikiProject Lists (which is for displaying at the top of lists' talk pages) to cover the basics of the category vs list conflict: for example: ("for the relationship between lists and categories, see the guidelines Wikipedia:Lists and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates").

Add an "Ongoing problems" section to Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists covering the AfD problem and other list problems.

Create a sister project to Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists, called "Wikipedia:List Rescue Squadron" modeled after Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron.

Post a proposal at the Village Pump to break the deletion of lists off into its own department: LfD. That would make it a lot easier to monitor the deletion discussions of lists, and the instructions could be much better tailored to the issues surrounding the deletion of lists.

Place a standard notice as a hidden comment (using <-- and -->) in the wiki-text at the top of every list, that anyone editing a list or considering the posting of an AfD would see. This would definitely raise WP:CLN and Wikipedia:Redundancy awareness. This would probably be the most effective approach of all of these, but since it would be placed on so many pages, a lot of thought needs to go into its composition. About a year ago, I helped improve a comment-delimited notice for display in external link sections' wiki-text. See Template:NoMoreLinks, which is designed to be substituted using {{subst:NoMoreLinks}} rather than transcluded.

Just some brainstorming.

The Transhumanist 19:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Lists vs. categories, round #N

Thought this would amuse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_notable_people_who_wore_the_bowler_hat I even ended up quoting you, seeing that you've thought through many of these issues ahead of me. Not that it does any good, in this villiage of the mostly-clueless. SBHarris 01:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The closing admin was in error, in my opinion. The outcome is clearly "no consensus". It should go to Deletion review as an obvious miscall. The Transhumanist 20:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of notable people who wore the bowler hat

I've asked for a deletion review of List of notable people who wore the bowler hat. Since you were the one trying to rescue the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The Transhumanist 21:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to read the instructions in Wikipedia:Deletion review#Commenting in a deletion review. ;) (You didn't state what you opt to do). The Transhumanist 01:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

==========================================================

Post all comments above this line, please. Thanks.

Speedy deletion of List of notable people who wore the bowler hat

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Truthanado (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no permanent damage

Every version of every page is stored in Wikipedia, which is actually a huge database. "Deleted" pages aren't physically erased, they're just made inaccessible to non-administrators.  ;) The Transhumanist 01:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention something you'd probably really like to know. Even if the Deletion Review fails, you can ask any admin to move the deleted article to your user space where you and others can fix it up to resubmit to Deletion Review. Fully referenced, it would most likely pass easily. In fact, you could ask an admin to make the move now, so that you could work on it during this Deletion review. See Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. Even if an article gets permanently deleted, you can get a copy of it for your own purposes. The Transhumanist 02:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. All the interesting things here on WP. I have asked User talk:Aervanath to see if the thing can be found. SBHarris 02:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know how to make the history show up on the bowler hat article. I hope I didn't interfere. I just saw it was up for speedy so I put some content there. :) Anyway, I have a copy of what I've done so delete at will. Good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you should slow down on this. The DRV is getting more complicated than it should be . . . first the nominator missed the #1 instruction of talking to the admin first, and then an editor tried on his or her own to restore the page so it could be looked at during the review . . . take a moment, or a day, to let the closing admin respond to the DRV and see if someone is willing to temporarily restore the deleted page so people can discuss it while looking at it. Nothing is ever gone and no damage is ever done on Wikipedia, as Transhumanist mentioned; and it's really not like anyone has to "see if the thing can be found." It's really easy to see if you have administrative access. There are no deadlines on Wikipedia, and so there's no rush. Your comments on the DRV and on the closing admin's talk page, as well as here, make it appear like you're taking the whole thing a bit personally, so maybe stepping back for a bit wouldn't be a bad idea.--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 05:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Otherleft, you make the second non-admin to tell me that it's "easy" for an admin to restore anything, and that nothing is ever lost on WP. Okay, maybe you have this on the word of somebody else? Until I see it, I'm skeptical. So far, I've seen the page apparently wiped, then a notation that it was overwritten to make space for something else, then THAT history disappearing. Requests to undelete the article to two different admins have so far resulted in nothing. I'm not asking for undeletion of somebody's private bio info, here. There's no reason it can't be undeleted and put somewhere-- my userpage for example-- where it will sit till this is resolved. But stop telling me it exists, if you yourself have not seen it, and only have faith that it exists. SBHarris 20:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

My response is based upon my knowledge of the software, as I'm a bureaucrat for a ridiculously low-traffic wiki elsewhere that runs on the same platform. I've also had a copy of a deleted article provided to me. Since this thread began an admin restored the entire history, and last night I reverted the temporarily-undeleted article to the last version prior to deletion. Take a look and see if it all seems to be there.--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 20:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is now there, and you are correct. My apologies. Skepticism as a philosophy still has its place, however. SBHarris 20:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't have a problem with skepticism. I was concerned that a editor with a long record of solid contributions was going to succumb to wikidrama or wikistress, though!--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 20:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikistress is a possiblity. The idea that each item in an stand-alone list-article needs its own reference is outrageous, for it amounts to demands of double referencing for articles and subarticles. You won't find a single entry reference in List of birds, for example, nor does the article reference at the end contain the complete list of birds given. Somebody thus should simply have tagged the Bowler references that weren't clear from clicking on the subarticle about them, but was too lazy to do it. The bowtie article is overkill, and frankly, is over-referenced. If somebody's official portrait shows him in a bowtie, and that photo leads his bio, you don't need a separate reference in the List. Such a thing is really is superfluous information which causes clutter. So you see the irony. SBHarris 21:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You know I don't know how a debate on List of birds would go - it's an interesting question, one that suggests I need to learn more myself!--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 21:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of list articles is much more like deletion of categories: proposed fixes (persecuted list-makers unite!)

In light of the discussion at WP:CLN it is apparent that lists and categories complement each other on Wikipedia, and are often used to do many of the same things. There is much overlap and duplication between them, and that's good. It is not good when deletion discussions involving them are not handled by the same people. Which is occuring now.

When somebody has a problem with a category they don't like, they come to category-for-deletion WP:CFD, because the criteria are not the the same as for articles (we also have separate deletion discussion boards as you see in WP:XFD, eight in all, for other things). However, when people want to delete a list article (list of ships, List of trees, List of birds), which is essentialy the same thing as a category, but in list-form, they go to the article deletion discussion page, WP:AFD. That's not good, because the criteria for notable articles are not the same as those for list-articles. The latter only need a header paragraph to explain themselves (see WP:LIST), and then elements which are individually notable. As in List of birds. But other kinds of wiki-articles normally put up for deletion have more stringent notability requirements, and their verifiability methods are not of the same type (a list article many only have hyperlinked elements and nothing else).

All this produces very WP:LAME edit wars, as you see on the WP:DRV page. For example, List of bow tie wearers has been up for deletion 4 times, and has only survived by now having many, many in-article cites, which makes it look very much unlike List of birds. All that because nay-sayers demanded article criteria for what is essentially a category in list-form. You can see much the same type of problem with List of notable people who wore the bowler hat, which is now up for deletion review on WP:DRV on the grounds that some people are arguing that the existence of the list itself needs defending as a point of WP:V, when in fact, this is really a "what categories are natural?" discussion.

• I propose that a separte page be created for proposed deletions of list-articles.

• OR I propose that WP:CFD be renamed Categories and list-articles for discussion in recognition of WP:CLN and the need to treat lists in line with category criteria on WP. Deletion discussion for list articles would then go on HERE.

Comments? I'm going to repost this around on the several TALK pages which deal with this matter. SBHarris 01:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Well intentioned, but I don't think fragmenting discussion is the answer. I think clearer better policies on citations and guidelines for lists/ categories would be the way to go. That's my two cents, but I'm giving you a discount. Citations are getting overused and being abused as a constant demand by article adversaries. Citations are only needed if material is controversial or disputed. Does anyone dispute that Paul Simon is a bow-tie wearer? Sorry if I'm raining on your idea. But I think we need less bureaucratic and administrative areas not more.ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

THey do in fact dispute that Paul Simon is a bow tie wearer, if you don't have a cite. If not for the recent speedy-delete attempts at lists without INDIVIDUAL cites (see above) we wouldn't be having this discussion. We already have eight different XfD areas, and we either need another for lists, or fold it into CFD. Look, I don't like beaurocracy any more than you do. But laws, like unions, are the result of bad management and bad enforcement by enforcers. Since some people lack common sense, they need rules. In a world where everyone acted reasonably, we'd only need 1% of the laws we have. Or less. SBHarris 02:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have with lists is that anybody can create a list on just about anything. List of people with noses less than 1 inch long. Beyond a certain point the list itself is OR. I think that list definitions need to have some sort of reference(s) to show that the editor didn't invent the definition of the list. I don't know that there's any other way to go on this that is defensible in the wikipedia.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? How do you do it with categories? List of British Jews. Did somebody on WP invent this, or not? SBHarris 04:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Same thing, and I don't have the faintest idea who invented it. ;-) Somebody obviously invented it sometime. Either it was an editor or it wasn't. I expect you could find a list of people that wear bowler hats somewhere though.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally List of fictional spacecraft is up for AFD.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

SBHarris, the examples you gave (List of trees, List of ships, and List of birds) are not analogous to List of notable people who wore the bowler hat. You see, each of the first three lists can for the most part be interpretted as List of tree articles, List of ship articles, and List of bird articles, which makes them navigational in nature - they are article lists and therefore aren't likely to be nominated for deletion. But the articles in the list in question are not primarily identified by the wearing of a bowler hat. They are not "Bowler hat wearer" articles. Therefore, that list isn't merely a navigational aid, it is also an article with primary content (claims of bowler hat wearing). Hence the need for references.

I suggest you rebuild the list within the article Bowler hat, from scratch, citing a reference for each item added to the list, before adding the next one. The Transhumanist 03:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Trans, there is no such thing as a list which is intrinsically "navigational." Even a list of trees is only "navigational" if your most important criterion for thinking about an organism is that somebody has labeled it a "tree" (rather than a shrub or something). But why should that be? That may not be why you're interested in the organism. Categories aren't obvious. Even primary categories aren't obvious, and any category will be redundant (everything belongs to more than one category-- in fact a potentially infinite number of them). And so what, if a list is "just" an article list? That's my point-- there is nothing compelling about why some lists are, and some other lists aren't. List of people who have been beheaded is just an article list, too. As is List of beneficial weeds (how is that for an oxymoron-- how do YOU define "weed"?) But note that these two lists are treated quite differently by the people whose have given themselves the job of sticking on "RS,V" headers. Why? Who knows. My point, again. There is no policy and no consistancy here. Why wasn't the list of beneficial weeds speedy-tagged, if Bowler hat wearers was? Who the hell can tell you if a thing objectively is a weed, much less a beneficial one?? Categorization is not a science, it's an aesthetic thing. And in the middle of that truth come barging in the many Wikipedians who want to categorize things aesthetically, and yet, can't stand to be shown WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is no escaping the problem. The only solution is to stop fighting about it. Fights about taste are the stupidest fights in the world.SBHarris 04:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You make some excellent arguments and you've convinced me. Perhaps lists need to be treated differently or separately. You've also sparked an interesting discussion.ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Trees aren't obvious? Ships aren't obvious? Birds aren't obvious? That's a bit silly. The community tends to keep these types of lists. They tend to get rid of the bowler hat wearer variety. And they're fairly consistent in doing so over time. The compelling factor is that the latter type appear to be silly or frivolous. Who cares about who wears a particular kind of hat? If the community decides that editors should be working on more important articles by deleting less important ones then that's they're perogative. It's not a perfect system, but the message is pretty clear. Stop wasting your time on those kinds of lists, and their inevitable AfDs. The Transhumanist 04:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal process

I suggest you write a proposal draft and have others help you refine it before actually submitting the proposal to the Wikipedia community via WP:VPR.

Then once you make the proposal by posting it for public debate, you can post notices on relevant talk pages around Wikipedia informing others about it and providing a link.

It's generally not a good idea to start discussions about the same topic in several locations on the wiki at once.

The Transhumanist 02:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• WP:VPR has many better things to do than decide that lists are actually categories, and should be treated like them. I"ve place the proposal at places like WP:XFD where they actually worry about the categories of stuff proposed for deletion, and how many there should be (8 or 9, or 8 with CFD folded in with a new LFD). Dont bother these people with something that makes most people's eyes glaze over. SBHarris 04:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Lists aren't categories. They're articles. But they have their own issues which could be better handled on a deletion page devoted to them. And it's a pain in the ass to sift through AfD to find list deletions. The Transhumanist 04:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Every category is intrinsically a list, whether it's been made into one yet, or not. Also vice versa-- a list is the members of a category, with a header which explains what the category is. They are logically the same operation. List of people who have been beheaded is just is more or less [[Category:Deaths by decapitation| ]]. And as for it being a pain to sift AfD for list articles, having a LfD or LFD where these things go (as CFDs go) would help you with that. If somebody misplaces one, you can always move it. SBHarris 04:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You're using the common definition for "list" and not the Wikipedia definition. You're quibbling over semantics when the essence of this situation is political or administrative. Lists are in article space, which makes them articles. They are held to higher standards than categories, including all the policies and guidelines that pertain to articles, and that's the price you have to pay to have them in article space. Either pay the price or stick to categories. The Transhumanist 04:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

<--outdent I am using the WP policy guide for stand-alone lists, which is at WP:STAND. Read it. The idea that being in "article space" makes all articles equal insofar as reference and inclusion requirements, is wrong. Lose it. BLP articles have extra requirements; list articles don't have as many. For example:

Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles: an example of this is List of minor characters in Dilbert.

Both of these guidelines on what is proper for list-entry referencing have already been misapplied or ignored in RfD discussions of list-articles, in which disputants have 1) held both that a simple link was not enough as a list-item reference (as that would supposedly be making wiki a reference for itself), and 2) have argued that making lists of things which wouldn't be notable enough for articles by themselves, was itself a notability violation. Wrong. Both these ideas are NOT policy for lists, but the problem is that policy is not being followed. WP:STAND also makes it clear that not all stand-alone lists need be navigational, and gives quite a variety of examples where they are not. None of this is to say that the Bowler Hat list doesn't need cleaning up, but it does point out that most of it is well within policy as it stands (there are also criteria in making stand-alone lists in WP:STAND, which most iconic entries in the Bowler list certainly meet), and the idea of speed-deleting the Bowler-wearers' list before there was time to fix it, was just pure bloodymindedness!

Now, there are at least three avenues to follow when editors refuse to follow deletion policy. One is to change the policy, and I invite you, if you disagree with the way items are supposed to be chosen and referenced in WP:STAND, to go and change the policy. Another possibility is to have a knock-down drag-out edit and review war, every time somebody who isn't familiar with list policy tries to apply their own vague ideas of RS,V from article space, to list items and list-articles themselves, without reading the Wikipedia list-article guidelines. Which is what we see has happened here. Finally, a solution which is far easier than that, would be to create a different court for lists, a dedicated (List-article for deletion) WP:LAFD page for proposed deletions of lists, which would make sure that list criteria are evenly applied to lists in list-deletion debates, and not some people's general (but wrong) ideas about list policy, made by induction from general subject article policy. And the last, is what I have proposed. SBHarris 21:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with the proposal. I'm glad you liked my suggestion. I hope it is successful, as an LfD department could clarify list policy so as to avoid the problems they encounter all the time at AfD. The Transhumanist 01:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Another approach

Another possible approach to the fictional part of the list is to create a section in bowler hat called "The bowler hat in pop culture". That should overcome the "indiscriminate" objection by providing context.

For an example of a similar section, see Meaning of life#The meaning of life in pop culture.

The Transhumanist 04:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Except I can point you to any number of AfD fights about sectons on pop culture which deleted as simply being a rename of WP:TRIVIA. Truely, there is no escaping this problem, and the problem really is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The people boil down to inclusionsts like me you would let anybody make any list they liked (as long as it didn't violate BLP or some other fundamental), and the other people who believe they can be the arbiters of good taste on Wikipedia. SBHarris 04:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

So what. Give up or try something different. Or sit there and cry about it. I don't care. It's your life, and you can spend it any way you like. I pointed out an option that sometimes works. So what if it sometimes doesn't. Is the glass half empty or half full? It up to you how to look at it. The Transhumanist 04:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Right back at you. I've tried it the other way, and gotten nowhere. So now I'm trying it my way. If you want to try it your way, have at it. SBHarris 21:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Energy (psychological)

I have nominated Energy (psychological), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy (psychological). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Responsible drug use

Hi, I just changed your link on the Harm Reduction page from a Main Article to a See Also, because I feel that while they are related, Harm Reduction is a public health philosophy, and responsible drug use seems to be more a personal matter.--rakkar (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me (I don't have a rabid opinion), but I don't think I entirely agree with your reasoning. "Harm reduction" is primarily a personal philosophy, also. The fact that it is a personal philosphy about public health does not ipso facto make it a public health policy. It is certainly ALSO a public policy in places where it has actually been enacted into law, but it doesn't cease to be "harm reduction" in places where it hasn't! Which is a great many places, if you take all aspects of the philosophy together. Most of your article is about harm reduction arguments as applied to places where it is NOT public policy, so you can't exactly define it the way you're suggesting

The other problem is that "Harm reduction" is badly defined in the article on it, because it doesn't include the explicit requirement that we're talking about illegal activities. Nobody calls safety training "harm reduction" for legal activities, no matter how risky they are. That includes riding the space shuttle or climbing Mr. Everest. We already have a word for that, and it's "safety." Why invent another, when it's not needed. Second, although some harm reductionists aim to reduce the harm from certain victimless illegal activities in part by decriminalizing them, but moment they succeed in this, they're no longer taking about harm reduction, but again are merely taking about safety, like Driver's Ed or scuba classes. So again that part of "harm reduction" philosophy actualy requires the activity to be illegal, and that's why getting training for the safest way to do an illegal thing is so difficult to get enacted as actual public policy. I'll repost this on the Harm reduction TALK page to see if anybody else has something to say on the issue. SBHarris 03:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

nothing much

I have on occasion seen your edits and have appreciated them but this is the first time I have ever visited your user-page (curiosity plus your vote concerning one of the candidates for ArbCom is a few votes below mine) and I just have to say IT IS TOTALLY COOL and the revolving PET scan is THE COOLEST EVER. I assure you this is the only time I have ever complemented someone on their user-page, and have felt disdain for that certain type of user who treats their user-page as if this were My Space, and went around complementing others of that type on their user-page ... I am babbling, it is because i have never done this before. But: what a totally cool user page! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Why, thank you very much! And I, of course, have seen you around for a long time too, and also regard you as a fellow "respected editor." As for the TALK, I haven't looked at it in awhile, and your note actually caused me to notice that the Kentucky Fried Movie Carioca box needed fixing. On the layout, I long ago decided that what people want to see on a userpage is lots of shiney moving objects (just to show that the user has been on WP long enough to know their way around), and not buttkissing barnstars. So that's how I did it. I stole most of it, of course (with some mods). The PET scan is lifted from the PET scan Wiki. But whatever-- it's the total effect that counts. Glad you enjoyed it. SBHarris 19:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you definitely nailed it (Wikipedia, Wikipedians, and your own page)! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

answers are up

Hi, if can you care to reconsider you vote, I have answered almost all of the questions now, at length. Answers to the others can usually be inferred from the answers given so far, but if there is any outstanding question that you are especially interested in, I'm open to suggestions. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:11, 14 December 2008 (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.