Jump to content

User talk:Mz7/June–August 2016

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hydraulic Press Channel in Prep 5

Hi, just wanted to let you know that your hook was adjusted per the discussion at WT:DYK and per the source. The paper exploded on the seventh fold, not after it. And YouTube channels don't fold paper; they broadcast the experiment. Best, Yoninah (talk) 09:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Hydraulic Press Channel

On 11 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hydraulic Press Channel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when the Hydraulic Press Channel, a YouTube channel, broadcast the folding of a piece of paper seven times using a hydraulic press, the paper exploded? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hydraulic Press Channel. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hydraulic Press Channel), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Contacting editors

I made a text change in Wikipedia's explanation of mass inertia, and it was quickly deleted. The person doing the deleting was identified as MaterialScientist. I've left messages for this person (who states he is a physics PhD). I think he's wrong to delete my edit, but if he's replying, I can't find out where.

How do I contact MaterialScientist? Or does he just go around deleting our changes? Zee99 (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Zee99, thank you for contacting me. On Wikipedia, we write messages to each other by posting at our respective "user talk pages" – it appears you've already left a message for Materialscientist at his user talk page, but he has not responded yet.
I took a look at your editing history and it appears this was the edit that you believe Materialscientist incorrectly reversed. I think I can help explain why your edit was reversed.
  • Firstly, the edit added content that was written in all capital letters. Doing so looks like the article is shouting at the reader and is an inappropriate style for a formal encyclopedia.
  • Secondly, the edit was more of a comment about content that was already in the article, rather than a change to the content itself. It's one thing to say that information in the article is inaccurate, and it's another thing to actually go in and change the article to make it accurate. Every Wikipedia article has its own dedicated talk page, you can find it at the top of the article: right above the article title there is a tab that says "Talk". That will take you to the talk page where you can comment on and suggest improvements to the article. This is the proper place to make a comment stating that information in the article is inaccurate—avoid making such comments in the body of the article, as doing so disrupts the flow of the article. For help with talk pages, see Help:Using talk pages.
  • Thirdly, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. It is not the right place to publish your own research or to try to personally set the record straight on a scientific principle. Wikipedia only includes information that has already been published in reliable sources, such as a peer-reviewed journal. If you wish to challenge the accuracy of content in an article, be prepared to cite published reliable sources that support your view. If your own research hasn't been published by a reliable source yet, it cannot be used on Wikipedia. Consider submitting your work to such a publication instead.
I hope this helps explain why your edit was reversed. If you are still confused, I would be happy to clarify. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


Thank you, Mz7. I didn't know capital letters meant I was shouting, and I apologize to all who were offended.

I also didn't know that I was supposed to use the talk page to edit. I saw the error, and I jumped in and edited. Sorry for that, too.

Regarding original thought, it's a toss-up. Ever since I was in 9th grade, I thought that masses had gravitational fields, and it was this collection of fields that determines the quantity of a mass. Even Einstein said so in defining what he meant by using the term "gravitational field." Now we have a Wikipedia article that claims gravitational fields "grow" with the velocity of a mass. That is new thought to me. In all of my knowledge of physics, I've never heard of gravitational fields "growing" as velocity is increased. Inertial mass "grows" as defined by Max Planck in 1908 in a well-accepted formula (known as the Lorentz transform for inertial mass dilation equation), but gravitational mass does not. If gravitational mass "grows," I would like to see the reference citation for it. Other than that, my change to to the article stands. Your Wikipedia writers and editors got it wrong, and I wasn't adding new thought.

Best regards

Zee99 (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

EC draft

I hope you don't mind, but I publicized your EC RFC draft on ANI, and asked for comments and edits directly to the draft.

In addition, I'd like to take the RFC live within the next ten days or so because we're seeing more requests for EC protection at various noticeboards. Unless you have objections, I'll do that when the time comes and leave you a notice here.

Just let me know if you have a problem with any of this. Thanks so much for your work on this issue. :-) Katietalk 23:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Thanks for letting me know. No objections here. I think it's time the community formed a consensus on the policy issue. Mz7 (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Keep up the good work, editors and readers alike appreciate it! :) Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 11:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


Your reply to template to Rms125a@hotmail.com

Mz7, I took the liberty of correcting your reply to template over here , just below #10 when you replied to Rms125a@hotmail.com. The reply to template won't accept the character "@" at all, so it didn't work and threw an error. I changed it to the ping template {{U|Rms125a@hotmail.com}} . I know this isn't typically done, however, it accomplished the purpose and got rid of the error. KoshVorlon 14:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi KoshVorlon. Thanks for letting me know. It's a little strange; the error did not show up for me when I originally made the edit. It looked fine. I wonder if something changed with the template since I made the edit. Mz7 (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For your original draft of what is now WP:ECP2016. Thanks for taking the initiative and starting the process. :-) Katietalk 08:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
@KrakatoaKatie: And thank you for getting the ball rolling at the village pump to start with. Mz7 (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hydraulic Press Channel

Hey there! I started a discussion on the Hydraulic Press Channel article's talk page, and I figured you'd want to join in. The disagreement is very dangerous and can attack at any time, so we must deal with it. –Matthew - (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:Hydraulic Press Channel#Repetitive introduction. Mz7 (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

joint probability of the PDAG

hi

are you sure that the joint probability you write of the graph figure is correct ?

this graphical model is a PDAG (chain graph) and I think the joint probability is this :


p(A,B,C,D) = P(A) * P(B) * P(C,D|A,B)


I'll wait for your answer . thank you :)

151.246.250.216 (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for contacting me! Unfortunately, I didn't write the graph figure you are referring to, and I am not well versed in the subject of the Graphical model article at all. My only involvement with the article was to reverse a few edits by another user who was trying to vandalize Wikipedia, such as this edit. You might receive a better response if you post your question instead at the article's talk page or at the talk page of WikiProject Statistics, a group of editors dedicated to improving statistics articles on Wikipedia. Sorry about that. In the meantime, if you are interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia (that is, if you aren't already), I would recommend creating an account to help integrate yourself within the community, but it's totally up to you. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

My Little Pony: The Movie

To Mz7: Thank You for the input on the draft of My Little Pony: The Movie, I've now edited the Sony Email Section in a way to give less interpenetration and more stating the facts given by the primary source. As for the Pre-Production issues, I haven't found much in terms of animation of the film so I'll see if the voice confirmation goes through, if not, I'll probably just have to wait. Animation100 (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Animation100, thanks for letting me know. I noticed that SubZeroSilver has actually removed the information based on the WikiLeaks sources, and I think that's probably the best thing to do for now, since the information in the emails has not been discussed elsewhere by secondary sources (like a news website). Wikipedia isn't the right place for original research, and using leaked emails as a source for an encyclopedia article seems to border on that a bit. I'm debating with myself over whether the Ashleigh Ball tweet is enough to show notability—it seems that it might just be. I will probably ask for more opinions before publishing the draft, though. Mz7 (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Gadget Flow

I just updated this listing as per your request https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gadget_Flow you were super helpful with your comments and feedback and I think that with the new notable sources we are good to go. Let me know your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.235.204 (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! I'll take a look and see what I can do. Mz7 (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse

The related ANI thread was closed with a comment about feeding a troll. I concur with that. I'm no mind reader, but all signs indicate that this person is only interested in seeing how many editors, for how long, they can tie up in argument, citing WP:AGF whenever you question their motives. They should never have been engaged in the first place. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Thanks for letting me know about the ANI thread. I think that "does IAR mean that a blocked user can fix typos" is a fair question for someone stumbling upon IAR for the first time, so in the beginning, it's hard to decide whether to engage. Their resistance to our advice is a little weird, but I personally don't mind explaining the policy. Trolls get off on editors getting annoyed at them, so one approach against them is to act unperturbed, answering even provocative questions with calmness and reason. Even if we won't get through to the user who asked, others at the Teahouse might read it and learn from it. (Maybe this is a little naive, but I think it's a healthy attitude.) That being said, I don't think I will be responding to the thread anymore—all that can be said has been said. Mz7 (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mz7/June–August_2016&oldid=1148111454"