User talk:Zedshort

Little mistake

Hi Zedshort, FYI, regarding this edit: at the time I wasn't totally convinced, so I tagged it ([1]). When I was reviewing the article today, I went looking for a source, and it seems that you had made a (little) mistake after all, so I have corrected it, and added a source: [2]:

It is not

${\displaystyle v_{\infty }=V-v_{e},}$

but

${\displaystyle {v_{\infty }}^{2}=V^{2}-{v_{e}}^{2},}$

which indeed makes more sense, because this is consistent with the additivity of kinetic energy, being proportional to the squared speed. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, that should have been obvious by substitution into the eqn for conservation of energy. Thanks Zedshort (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

You're not new here, so by now you shoud know about wp:edit warring. You removed something without an explanation ([3]), I reverted that with an explanation ([4]), and now you are supposed to discuss this on the article talk page, not to revert again, as you did here. This is explained in wp:BRD. Please keep that in mind. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding large blocks of text like this is not allowed.[5] Please read WP:MEDRS regarding what sort of sources you should use. Also that content was already in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a large block of text that is a presented as a quote is permitted. Remember that there are guidelines on WP not rules and while those guidelines are useful they are not hard and fast. Who exactly do you think you are? Zedshort (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Doc James has more contribs than anyone to medical articles (not an exaggeration, see here), is more of less the leader of WP:MED, and is an admin who is very attuned to copyright issues, and who will block you if you continue doing this. Yes you used a blockquote here and the other times you edit warred it in, but the blockquote is not especially clear since you made it the very first sentence of the article, and it is arguably simple plagiarism as it appears. It is also completely unnecessary. Don't do this. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I frankly don't care who he is nor who you are. Or perhaps I should say who you think you are. The number of edits a person makes is immaterial, nor does it matter who he says he is as there is no special status here. Why don't you try to put your brain in gear and improve the article? Zedshort (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Gout. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Referring to "I suspect you are incapable of that as you are too intent on defending your territory" (addressing Doc James) and "That might work if you are not somebodies lackey" (addressing Zad68) as you did here. - DVdm (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear, I seemed to have stepped on some gouty toes. So sorry. Zedshort (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that you stepped on anybody's toes, so there is no need for sarcastic non-apologies. You are however close to shooting yourself in the foot—again. - DVdm (talk) 07:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gout. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I see you did not post the above silly, semi-official notice on the other user's page. Why not? Biased a bit maybe? Zedshort (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry but the English Wikipedia does not have a neutral point of view (NPOV). Instead, it has a JPOV. This means that all articles must conform to the POV of the two Js, User talk:Jytdog and User talk:JzG. The administrators should have stopped this abuse but they are too cowardly. Threegoodmonkeys (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
It's pretty pathetic, is it not? Zedshort (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
That you would have that jaded (another J!) viewpoint is, true. They've earned the respect they're paid. Have you? Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Saucy and pointless. Do you really have something to say? I made quick review of your contributions and found you do little more than post on talk pages. Zedshort (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Another poisonous edit summary

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Sun. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. This is about your edit summary "if you don't understand English as a first language then leave it alone" to user JorisvS. Before you insult people like that, you might also look around. Searches in Google Scholar and Google Books for the exact phrases prove you wrong:

DVdm (talk) 09:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I am very unimpressed. Maybe you need to understand what is going on first, before you post these semi-thuggish, semi-official looking placards on people's talk pages. In addition to that, you completely missed the point of he edit. It was an attempt to replace a two syllable word with a single syllable word "grows" and simplify the writing. Zedshort (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The point of your edit and summary was that you accused JorisvS of not understanding English, thinking that "to grow older" must be related to "growth". You might have asked yourself and/or JorisvS whether perhaps he had made the edit in order to avoid possible confusion for readers with a more shallow understanding of English. - DVdm (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The best you might accuse me of is being a bold editor. I have grown irritated beyond expression with the very bad writing I find here on WP in super abundance. I work very hard to straighten the convoluted and clear the turgid writing. We should not adjust things here for those who speak English as a second language, but "grows" is better than "becomes". I don't see the point of your using Google "Scholar" to justify bad writing. Are you suggesting that if everyone uses "there" rather than "their" that such a choice is to be approved of here? Zedshort (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
"Grows" being better than "becomes" is an opinion to which you are entitled, but some people seem to disagree. Indeed, you work hard to improve bad writing, and you're doing a very good job at it, for which thanks. And yes, from your edit summaries and comments it is obvious that you have grown irritated, which is no excuse for insulting fellow editors. - DVdm (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The other editor is in fact one for whom English is a second language, there was no attempt at an insult. Zedshort (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Many permanently deleted remarks have appeared in DVdm's User page and his User Talk page, in perfect English. MI5 came to his help in 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kt6yda (talkcontribs) 16:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your improvements to the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg page! DaltonCastle (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:AOHA

Please use care to avoid edits like this. You may wish to review WP:AOHA and WP:HA#NOT. VQuakr (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:VQuakr. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. 2nd warning regarding behavior such as [6]. Per above, please review WP:HA#NOT. VQuakr (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The only thing I reverted on a talk page was your removal of my post: [7], [8]. VQuakr (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I honestly have no clue what you mean. I found you reverted my post on the talk page. Perhaps there is some edit conflict. Zedshort (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Your throwing out of the blue flags of WP shows that you are incapable of standing on your own two legs and thinking and expressing yourself. As we all know, the problem frequently is with particular editors, not just with the article. I suspect you are becoming a problem. If you remove my postings on the Talk page of battery again I will bring in other people. Such obscurantist behavior is very inappropriate. Zedshort (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what "blue flags of WP" are but immediately above I link to where you removed my article talk page post, an action which I subsequently reverted. That has been my only rv in article talk space related to you. VQuakr (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
It was not my intention to revert your comment on the talk. Probably editing too fast and edit conflict. Blue Flags refer to the WP "rules" and the bad habit of some people to refer to them rather than to speak for themselves. Personally, I am always unimpressed with such behavior as I suspect such people are lazy or have weak minds. Zedshort (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
"Blue flag" as in WP:BLUELINK? VQuakr (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please refactor this to focus on content, not other editors. Your personal attacks become disruptive when you let them bleed into article talk space. VQuakr (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crystal radio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rectification (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Schottky diode. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. I don't know how else to explain to you that targeting editors rather than discussing content in article talk space is disruptive. This warning is in response to this diff. If you have questions or concerns about my edits, you are welcomed to discuss them in user talk space. VQuakr (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I consider the posting of such semi-official placards as a mark of a person that cannot think for or express himself in his own words and to be an example of usurpation of authority. Stand up on you hind legs and learn to speak for yourself or shut up. Zedshort (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I consider your response silly and melodramatic. Learn to work with others or shut up. But since you asked, targeting editors rather than discussing content in article talk space is disruptive. This warning is in response to this diff. If you have questions or concerns about my edits, you are welcomed to discuss them in user talk space. VQuakr (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I do not "target" editors, you followed me around and reverted my edits and have as a result come to my attention. Working with others is a fine idea, provided it does not mean resorting to leaving an article incorrect as in the case of the battery article. You seem to think that an article should be written by a crew that has no familiarity with the subject. The end product of such a process will be garbage. I once came upon a law text written by a committee of seven lawyers. It was the most turgidly written bit of dross I have ever encountered. A law text written by committee I call a "turgidity"; a horse designed by committee is called a camel; an encyclopedia written by a crew of nattering half-educated amateurs is called Wikipedia. BTW have you found a good chemistry text with a section on electro-chemistry? Have you read it? Do you now agree that the anode is the source of electrons? Do you understand that the manufacturers of such devices mark a positive sign on the product to indicate that that end is at a higher potential than the other and is not to suggest that cations gather at the + end and electrons gather at the - end, but is in fact the reverse? I am searching the literature for a clear expression of that. Very oddly, they seem to studiously avoid making such a clear expression. I will eventually find one. In the meanwhile, it would be appropriate for you to go to the battery article and correct the article based on the abundant sources that express what we can in fact back up with sources (electrons flow from the anode, etc.). I suggest you do that as you were the one that foolishly and incorrectly reverted my edit there. You want to talk about cooperating with other editors, then try practicing what you preach. Zedshort (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
By "targeting", I mean resorting to ad hom on article talk pages rather than focusing on content. When, as you did, an editor adds several pieces of incorrect information to several different articles, it is quite reasonable to check their other edits. Wikipedia is written by many editors; what is your point? I added a source on the battery article already. Yes, we agree that the anode is the source of electrons in a discharging battery, and we agree that the terminal marked "+" on a discharging battery has higher voltage than the terminal marked "-". Electrons flow from negative to positive (the opposite direction from positive current, i). You seem to be confused about that last part; maybe you could at least entertain the possibility that you are mistaken and the other editors pointing out your mistake are correct? VQuakr (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Again, I think we are out of sync w.r.t. the symbols marked on a device and the source of electrons. The terminal marked positive (should be marked "this end is the high potential end") is the anode and is the source of electrons that flow from that end "downhill" (against the PE gradient) through the external circuit and to the cathode end where they recombine with the cations gathered there. That cathode end is marked with a negative on the case of the device. The article reads: The terminal marked negative is the source of electrons that when connected to an external circuit will flow and deliver energy to an external device. That is simply incorrect. The terminal marked positive is in fact the anode and is the high potential end and hence is the source of electrons. I had corrected the article, yet you reverted my edits that eliminated those grotesque errors, hence I can only conclude that you agree with that nonsense. The material I added on the battery page was correct. What can I possibly think of someone who insists on getting it wrong? Zedshort (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
You are confusing the issue by making up your own terminology, as evidenced by your incorrect phrase, "...the high potential end and hence is the source of electrons". Can you review Electric current#Conventions and rephrase in that context? The sentence you bolded is correct as written. VQuakr (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
You are correct, I was wrong. I forgot the convention for positive current is defined by a flow of positive charges and the opposite sense of that, the flow of electrons in the opposite direction and same total charge rate amounts to the same thing: one coulomb of cations to the right is the same as one coulomb of negative charges to the left. W.R.T. a carbon zinc battery, the zinc can is the anode, it is marked negative and can be seen as the source of high potential electrons that flow through the external circuit to the positive terminal. Meanwhile the current within the battery is in the opposite sense, the cations flow from the anode to the cathode at the same rate as do the electrons. My bad. My apologies. Sincerely. Zedshort (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Glad we were able to drive it to ground, pardon the pun. Kind regards. VQuakr (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Permian

Hello, Zedshort -- I came here to thank you for your excellent edits to Permian, but on the way to your talk page looked at your user page, which I enjoyed immensely. I made one small change to the article. If you prefer the way it was before my edit, I'd be glad to change it back (but I think that noun phrase – "A five degrees Celsius temperature change" – is a bit long). (If I end up changing it back, I would add "A" before "five degrees Celsius" and add an "a" to "temperature".) Now that I think of it, I'm wondering – judging from your user page – if you're from the SE or Ozarks and actually pronounce it "temperture"; it would go right along with "git". ;)  – Corinne (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. You're rather modest on your user page, so how in the world did you know enough about the Permian to do such a good job at re-writing some of those sentences?  – Corinne (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Weak interaction

I corrected an ungrammatical sentence in Weak interaction, then you reverted it without explanation. Now the sentence is wrong again. I think the article should have correct grammar; don't you agree? Ntsimp (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a matter of style, not grammar. Zedshort (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
A sentence without verb is a grammatical error. Even if you think that the grammar was correct, the style would be ugly. This is the English Wikipedia. I have reverted again: [9]. - DVdm (talk) 07:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
... but if you feel strong about still having that ugly sentence in the article, you can go to the article talk page and discuss—see wp:BRD. - DVdm (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
For your future reference: "was" is a verb. Zedshort (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
A collection of letters that starts with "The theory of which was developed ..." can not be a sentence. - DVdm (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Don't work yourself into a tizzy over it. Zedshort (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

 Hello, Zedshort. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Input on article

I'd be interested in your thoughts on the entry for George C. Weir. It seems notable enough to me, but it's been nominated for deletion and I would welcome your input. Thanks.--YHoshua (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Entropy

Z, some of your edits there have added entropy by adding grammatical errors and changes of meaning; please review and correct carefully, or you're likely to have the whole lot reverted. Dicklyon (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I removed part. Threatening to revert the whole lot because of an error sounds aggressive and is inappropriate. If everyone went about removing material because they found the writing to be ungrammatical or slightly off, there would be nothing left to WP. Learn to work with what you have. Zedshort (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
It was more a prediction than a threat; I didn't have the energy to work on it one way or the other, and thought that maybe you could fix it before someone reverted it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I note that you often do not provide edit summaries: [10]. Edit summaries help other editors understand your work. They are appreciated. Guidelines on edit summaries can be found here. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries are a pointless waste of time. If you want to understand what and why just look at the before and after version. Zedshort (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)