User talk:SCZenz/Archive2

Able and Baker

Hi! I responded on my own talkpage, because I think the answer might be of interest to several. I would have notified you of this earlier, but Wikipedia seems to be having hiccups right now... Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

linking isue at FAC

Hi, I disagree with the response to your query about repeat linkings. Please see See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting for WP policy. In general, many WP articles are overlinked. Tony 16:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

repeated link

Hi, in this case, I agree that a repeated link is not inapropriate. Tony 01:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

User:Snowspinner has opened up a RFC over my behaviour. You have been involved in many of the afds that I have nominated, you should have a good overview of my general behaviour, I'm sure you can provide some decent balanced commentary on the situation. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Hahnchen - Hahnchen 17:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

COmment on policy

[1] --Tedzsee 00:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bounty Board

Greetings. You've recently been involved with working on get articles up to featured status, so I wanted to let you know about a new page, Wikipedia:Bounty board. People have put up monetary bounties for certain articles reaching featured status - if the article makes it, the bounty lister donates the stated amount of money to the Wikimedia Foundation. So you can work on making articles featured, and donate other people's money at the same time. If this sounds interesting, I hope you stop by. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 01:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mainpage pictures

Raul654 chooses the articles that will go on the mainpage. He's the one that makes the decisions on what pictures, subjects, and summaries are suitable. All I do is voluntarily add the "mainpage date to come" templates on the chosen articles advising that they will soon be on the mainpage. From watching Raul654, I've noticed he only chooses articles that have pictures where the subject can be seen in 100px, but he does ocassionally let this slide. For example, today's featured article Metrication has a 130px picture, though I think this was done because it would be too small at 100px and it wouldn't come out grossly oversized at 130px like some of the ones on the suggestion page do. If you'd like, ask Raul654 what his take is on all of this. I changed all the pictures down to 100px because that is most likely the size they will come out on the mainpage and because some had pictures that were obviously too large for the mainpage. If you can find a suitable picture that can clearly depict the article in 100px, that would be best, but if you think this picture is the best out there, then ask him to waive the pixel size for you. PRueda29 08:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMIC

Good idea on moving it back to WP:COMIC. As for the 7th guideline, it's all but approved. Everyone has agreed to it now except Snowspinner and I think he misunderstands it... Tedzsee 03:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I am really unsure of what you mean by an 8th "catch-all" provision. The debate has spun around in circles so many times that I'm having a hard time figuring out where we are. I'll wait till you've posted it and then comment, if that sounds fair.Tedzsee 21:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RC patrol

Hi SCZenz. I noticed you just listed a couple pages for speedy. 6400 and 4800. I was looking at them as well, and checked out user:4.242.192.91. S/he's doing a lot of redirecting and I'm having a hard time deciding if it is nefarious or not. (redirect 20000 to 10000?) Would you have a moment to look? I'm not too sure about proceeding, but don't want to just let it go by. Thx. --Bookandcoffee 09:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking. I'll poke through some of it and clean it up. Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 09:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

QM philos

Hi,

To me the measurement section that Ingham wrote is incomprehensible. I can't begin to try to rewrite it. Better to go somewhere else and deal with something I can manage. But... did you mean to imply that you and "people who already understand" can understand it? To me it doesn't say anything with a clear enough meaning to decide whether it is right or wrong. I've written essentially the same questions to Ingham elsewhere, but the stuff I put on the discussion page for the rfd is perhaps more compact. He has not been very responsive, but maybe because I'm oblivious to the truth. P0M 06:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I'll see, for the record, whether I can take the spookiness, or at least the part of the spookiness that is not natural to the subject, out of the writing and tighten it up enough so people do not have to read between the lines. Then maybe a few more people can decide whether it is a useful article.

And you think there is a way to get information into a quantum computer and do something with it that would be useful in this context? P0M 15:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What you said is what I wrote to him about his quantum computer reference. His response, as I recall, was ambiguous but he wanted it left it. There are many other things in that block of text that are equally confusing/confused. Thanks for your response, which will help eliminate one of them (or not, depending of the fortunes of edit war). P0M 01:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still puzzling over this thing I reread where you said, "He's concerned with the "primacy" of one theory or the other, which is unnecessary." I wouldn't have gotten into this at all except that he jumped into the article on causation and made edits that insisted (or seemed to be insisting) that QM gives deterministic results so there is an uninterrupted chain of cause and effect from the beginning of the Universe to the present. We just have trouble understanding this inevitability because we cannot get information from the QM scale stuff without wrecking it, so we get only probabilities. That result indicates a limitation on our knowledge. It doesn't imply that there are any truly random processes. Radioactive materials decay on a strict schedule. But it is their schedule, and we can't know about it. All we can know is that we get a beep out of the geiger counter on a statistically reliable schedule. Or something like that. Another example, if I follow his POV, might be that there "must" be something about the slit screen or the detection or some other part of the apparatus that determines where each photon hits the screen. It appears random to us, chaotic to us, because we don't have the information needed to tell which of the points on the detection screen is going to be more "attractive" (or whatever is going on). P0M 04:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wooster greeks

Someone brought it up on Deletion review, which is fine and probably the least confrontational way. But since it was an early closure and pretty obviously out-of-process, and not requiring admin powers, and you had asked the closer about it, you could have just reverted the actions if you wanted to. -Splash^talk 02:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on "Paris riots" page

Re[2]:
- It's not spam, apparently the links to ABC news got caught up when I reverted that section to remove the blog cartoon link. When I mentioned spam I was refeering to the cartoon. Sorry about the confusion. I'll fix it. -Loren 03:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correction: the links are still there, they just got moved down a few lines. -Loren 03:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thankyou

thanks for looking after the Paris riots article, you're doing a good job! dab (ᛏ) 08:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Policy on Refrence Desk

I would like to advocate this policy on questions on the refrence desk that are clearly homework related. I would like to have a policy that on homework questions, that acting as a philosopical source of knowledge that we throw them a tidbit to get them started, ask a pointed question on what is next, and provide ample refrences on where and what to read to gain an understanding of the underlying principals, and <Italic>History</Italic> of the problem.

While we obivously cannot do their work for them, (It never serves them to do this, ) we can assist them in gaining the mastery of the tools nessesary to help them, not only with the problem at hand, but with following problems too. I remember that after I thought I was all of a hot-shot at web searching, I asked the local refrence librarian about it. ( Insert shrinking ego sound here...). I learned a lot from her, but she didnt tell me any answers, but was an excellent guide. That is the model of what I am striving for here. Just to be an excellent guide. Artoftransformation 23:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The College of Wooster Greeks debate reopened

Since you participated in this AFD debate, you might like to know that it has been reopened following discussion at WP:DRV. The new debate is at here. Yours, Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Coat School, Oldham (BJAODN)

Yes, I'm aware that the version to which I made disambiguation repairs was the BJAODN version - however, those disambig repairs do not change the outward appearance of the article which is the basis for it being in BJAODN at all. Instead, what they do is to make it easier for editors working on the Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links and Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance projects to disambiguate all the regular, non-joke articles by making the "what links here" screens for those disambig pages less crowded - articles really in need of fixing are thereby made easier to spot. Although I agree that the joke page ought not be edited for content, the primary mission of Wikipedia (providing an encyclopedia) should outweigh the interest in maintaining a BJOADN page with links to disambiguation pages (which appear identical to the corrected links anyway). Cheers! BD2412 T 12:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fear not - I won't touch the content! BD2412 T 17:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tl

Hello, mate. I saw that in your last edit to Talk:Alice you wrote out the script {[[Template:Merge|merge]]}} (with the result of {merge}}). Just so you know, there's a faster way to do that: Template:Tl. The way it works is, you just put it before the template you want to link to as a pipe (e.g. to link to the merge template, you'd put {{tl|merge}}). This is one of the templates that's best to use with subst (you can read all about why at Wikipedia:Template substitution), so the full tag to link to Template:Merge would be {{subst:tl|merge}}, resulting in {{merge}}. Hope that helps. Take care, --Blackcap | talk 16:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it turns out that I was wrong about the bit that says to subst in {{tl}}; it's actually best to just use it without the subst. The rest is correct, though :). Sorry for the confusion. Take care, Blackcap | talk 06:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marvel Comics characters

I recently reverted apparent vandalism on the List of Marvel Comics characters, restoring wikilinks and headers that had been removed from the A, B, and C characters only. My comment reads "rv removal of subheaders/wikilinks". Almost immediately afterward, you reverted my revert as vandalism. Was this an error? If not, you surely owe me an explanation. -- SCZenz 19:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was a mistake. I have a habit of reverting edits which appear to remove content, but sometimes they are not vandalism. Andrew_pmk | Talk 19:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ATLAS experiment

Dear SCZenz,

I was really impressed by the Atlas experiment article that is featured on Wikipedia today, and wrote a sentence about it on my blog, motls.blogspot.com. Good luck to your great work,

Lubos --Lumidek 17:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're Absolutely Right

If it weren't for my temper and beliefs, I probably would have done that already, but I seem to keep on shooting myself in the foot in some kind of gut reaction to his intimidation of others. Thank you for your concern in my I apologize if i've facilitated his way for being rude and abrasive towards other users. karmafist 20:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Complimentary/complementary

Yeah, I definitely had to look it up to be sure at all. By the way, I finally got photoshop and tried my hand at de-yellowing a few of the ATLAS images (Image:ATLAS TRT.jpg and Image:ATLAS SCT.jpg). Let me know if you don't think they're improvements. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help Desk Speed

You answered my question in two minutes. What took you so long? ;-) Thanks! Halcatalyst

Re:AN

Ahh, I just answered at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#AN_Protected.3F. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anon ATLAS edit

You should probably have a look at [3]. I rolled back the whole thing, since the, ahem, "spelling corrections" were pretty rude, but I didn't do the research to know if his content points were good, bad, or indifferent. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your response on the talk page confused me further, I'm afraid. Please respond there. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opium

The message was removed. Thank you for alerting me and I apologize for the inconvience. Sycthos 22:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Webcomics - Have you seen this?

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics - Have you seen and read this? I only found out about this today. I think you may be able to contribute and give some insight into this case, read through it, see what you think. Oh, and goodluck with the RFA. - Hahnchen 06:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]