User talk:SCZenz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my talk page; please leave new messages at the bottom. I'll respond on your talk page, unless you request otherwise.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to User talk:SCZenz/Archive8. Sections without timestamps are not archived

Pre-admin archives:

Post-admin archives:

Werdnabot archives:

Contents

[edit] Image:IMG 1510.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:IMG 1510.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you.

[edit] Complaint

My article was deleted! Please put the Wicky Woo article back up! It is provable information, just go to www.freearcade.com. I am boycotting this service unless you put the article back up immediately.

[edit] Non-postulated relativity

Dear SCZenz,

Thank you for advice. I am not going to start a new article about Lev Lomize, because this is about a scientific issue, not about a person. But making an alternative paper about SR would probably lead to a dispute (would it?), which I also do not want, especially since I work in a different scientific field. Still, this does not feel right. Just to summarize. A book was published in Russia and sold in 70,000 copies. But the editors are saying that this is not a reliable source, because its English translation has not been peer reviewed. Do you think this is right? Why they simply did not say that this book is not good enough to be included in their SR article? I would understand that. I am asking you simply because I am a new user here and want to understand better Wikipedia policies.

Thank you.

Biophys

[edit] Non-postulated relativity

Dear SCZenz,

Thank you. So, if I understood you correctly, any article on a subject like "Theory of relativity based on physical reality" (title of Janossy book) must be based on verifiable sources. Right now, I have ~30 references, more than a half of them are journal publications. But I also would like to make a reference on this book by Lev Lomize. It is written in Wikipedia instructions that a published book is an acceptable source, except self-publishing. An internet reference to the russian version of this book can be found here [1].

Now, there is a question. I was told that Dr. Ginzburg will probably do whatever is neccessary and reasonable to help me out. So, what do you think should be done to improve the verifiability of the source and the article in general? Should Dr. Ginzburg explain in a letter that this book has indeed been peer reviewed, indicate the names of reviewers (if he knows them) and tell what he thinks about the book and its content? Should this letter be placed by him on the Internet, and where? What else should or can be done?

Thank you very much for help!

Biophys

[edit] Non-postulated relativity

I just would like to make a comment about reliable sources. Yes, one must make references to original papers in journals if he is talking about new experimental results or new theories described in such papers. Most books however do not introduce new data or theories. They often provide only new explanations or interpretations of the previously published experiments and theories, for example to make some complicated subjects more understandable for students. Most scientific journals would not accept a paper that only describes new explanations with regard to alredy published theories and data, expecially if such explanations are written at the level understandable by undegraduate students. This is the case of the book "Non-postulated relativity". It does not introduce any new theories or data. It only explains the already existing and widely accepted theories (such as SR) in a novel way. This is a textbook for students, not a new original research. I am sure that Russian version satisfy completely Wikipedia requirements, and the English translation satisfies the requirements of Wikipedia for translation, because it was done by a professional interpreter.

Sincerely,

Biophys

From SCZenz: If it's simply a new way of teaching SR, then there are two ways it could be included in Wikipedia: 1. It was a notable minority viewpoint among teachers of SR. 2. Our editors thought the pedagogical approach would be useful for our readers, and found it not to have any major philisophical differences from ordinary SR teaching. Is either of these things true?


I agree, this is simply a new way of teaching SR.

I think 1. is true.

As about 2., this approach is certainly pedagogically useful. But most people would probably think (and I think) that there are signicant philisophical differences from ordinary SR teaching, although this is something that could be discussed. So, I am not sure about incorporating this approach into the existing SR article, although it could be briefly mentioned there. Probably, it would be better to make a separate article on this subject and follow NPOV.

Biophys


[edit] Nil desperandum

You are appreciated. Please do not give up the fight. Clio the Muse 23:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see you back and thanks for your message. I've read over your proposals and it all looks good to me. Unfortunately, there are some users who manage to combine immaturity with a mighty high opinion of themselves, which, I think, is where the chief problem lies. I wish I could mention names here, but I realize that would not be politic. I feel sure, though, you could make a good guess at whom I have in mind. It amuses me when people threaten to retire, in the style of Achilles, into their tents. I personally would be happy for them to sail all the way back to Greece! The reference desk demands three simple things: knowledge of the subject, good sense and good faith. As long as some people keep a grasp of this it will continue to work in a reasonable and efficient fashion. My very best wishes. Clio the Muse 02:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Strict Ref Desk"

SCZ, I have a proposal out for a new test "Strict Ref Desk", where your efforts will actually be appreciated, unlike at the current Ref Desk, where your efforts are seen as disruptive. Would you be willing to patrol the Strict Ref Desk, instead ? StuRat 19:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What the fork Stu! Your desk, you patrol it. --hydnjo talk 19:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not "my Desk", it's a test desk for everyone to try out all their new suggestions. StuRat 07:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ignore this 'strict desk' for the meretricious nonsense it so clearly is. Do not be diverted! Clio the Muse 03:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, I am ignoring it, and I'm not diverted. -- SCZenz 01:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
It does seem strange that a genuine attempt to address criicisms of the RDs has been ridiculed or ignored. (Just like my attempt a some guidelines for the existing RDs.) Why is that?--Light current 02:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
These points are addressed in my comments at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Where we stand. -- SCZenz 03:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
No they aren't, you just say "it's a joke" and say nothing more about it. StuRat 13:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The "strict reference desk" is a joke, an effort to create a false dichotomy and to shove concern about the status quo into into a box. The idea is, rightly, being ignored by almost everyone. -- SCZenz 17:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Those hardly count as "comments", they are just insults. Real comments would list what the advantages and disadvantages would be of performing the tests, followed by your conclusion. You've obviously not given any actual thought to the matter, but just rejected it out of hand. That would be like me looking over your proposed rules and just saying "those are stupid" without addressing each one. StuRat 17:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
SCZ Please answer the question properly. Why is it wrong for an alternative desk to be set up to answer your criticisms and to test out your opinions?--Light current 21:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The proposal amounts to enshrining violations of Wikipedia policy as the "real" reference desk, by marginalizing those with objections to the status quo. There's nothing to test. You're trying to create a page to get me off your back, not because you want that page to exist. What possible other comments can I make? -- SCZenz 01:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
As usual, you are wrong 8-(--Light current 01:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reminders

Cool. I have no problem helping out with reminders when I see the need. Just be aware that I do not read all the questions/posts - just the ones I take an interest in so I may miss very blatant excesses. --Justanother 04:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A suggestion

As an illustration of another way to approach things, see User talk:DirkvdM#Please remove Ref Desk Comment. DirkvdM 10:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Handball redirects

I think that those redirections gives to the users a false idea that the article exists.. if the red link is shown someone will like to write the article, but if it is blue the guy will think it already exists. But ok, it is just my opinion.. why have 20 pages redirecting to 1? if there is nothing there..just show it in red —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calapez (talk • contribs) 00:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Deliberate Disruption?

Hi, SCZenz. I should know my way around Wikipedia protocol by now, but as a relative newcomer I still find some things puzzling. I have one major question: when is a troll not a troll? What I mean by this is can a seemingly 'legitimate' contribution be regarded as trolling? Do people have the 'right' to be offensive; and, if not, when can action be taken against them for causing offense? For obvious reasons I cannot name names; but there is one user in particular who, I feel, sets out to be both offensive and disruptive, while still falling short of outright sabotage. I am sorry if this sounds tortured; but euphemism around here seems, on occasion, to be the only proper mode of discourse. The assumption of 'good faith' is, sad to say, quickly exhausted. Clio the Muse 20:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll give it some thought. Clio the Muse 23:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Sniff sniff! Do I smell my ears burning? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Light current (talk • contribs) 23:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] RE:Repost speedies

Ah, thanks for letting me know. I tagged it as a repost because of the previous AFD (which seemed to indicate that there was content there, and not just a redirect). Guess not, heh. Gzkn 02:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No problemo. Gzkn 03:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts

I'm very reluctant to answer your question, because I'm ready to pack up and leave for a long while from that page. If you read in between the lines of some of my posts, there's quite a few good nuggets there. My hands are very tied up now. The Wiki does not work if people stop listening and argue on ideals and principles. Few compromises have been made to date - nor has anyone given ground to let this happen. These opportunites have been silenced long ago and the rhetoric has become very political. An exceptional amount of passive aggressiveness has built up, and there is no more I can do to diffuse it. It does look as if things are improving though, so I'll reserve the position that this opinion is of the ephemeral sort.

One thing I did not count on, were the unfortunate few incidences which were escalated to the AN - I have been surprised by this twice now. When this happens, it invites a diversity of opinion which dilutes the core issues - if you read carefully, some contributors are not there for improving the reference desk - they are there in the name of principles, while forgetting that none of this works if the other party is not being actively engaged. Definitive judgement and characterization is not what many are here for.

I do not like to point fingers, but I will say that a number of things could have and should have been done better, and unfortunately, I am guilty of not doing either soon enough. The reason is that the problem that is perceived now is fundamentally different from what it was before when it surfaced. I regret not jumping in to say there was something not quite right when that happened. I saw it coming even before it happened, but I failed to act. This new problem is simply not for the reference desk talk page to fix on its own. I am also very disappointed at that sockpuppet incident. There is nothing that eats more at a Wikipedian soul, than an incident which tests and illustrates the administrative abilities, sensitivities, and limitations of Wikipedia. This view about administrators against non-administrators which surfaced a little is exceptionally negative - even if it were vacuous. It does not serve to lend confidence to the institutions that have served this project since Day 1.

There's still a trump card left, but I do not want to play it because it will stir the pot quite rigorously, it is unfair, and privately it is not a solution that is for the benefit of this project in the short term, hence I've kept it to myself. The Wikipedians that want codification do not really want that - what they are after is a sense of security and a sense of respect, and to date, they have received very little of it. On the other hand, this has not been said explicitly, because its entangled with other issues. Identifying and isolating these would help quite a bit, because nobody creates rules to become subordinate to. The solution needs to empower both sides - now it should be obvious why this is cryptic, because it would not do this project any good if it were given away. Work simply has to be done, but unfortunately, this is one Wikipedian that is spent and needs a rest. I'm confident though, that in about a month or so someone will pick up the torch. All the best, --HappyCamper 01:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attack

Hi again, SCZenz. Could you please read over, assuming you have not already done so, my recent addition to the RD discussion page under the heading 'My remarks etc'. I would ask for some admin. intervention in this pathetic business. If, because of our past contacts, you may not feel it proper for you to deal with the matter in person, I would ask you to pass it on. I do, however, ask for some urgent action. I am under attack for no good reason, and in a highly offensive fashion. Thanks. Clio the Muse 20:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, SCZenz. I left a brief response to your note on my talk page. The problem will not arise in future, for the simple reason that I will never again enter into any form of discussion with him. Clio the Muse 00:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello again! I've posted a final statement from me on this matter on the RD talk page under the relevant section. You do a good job, and I at least thank you for it. Clio the Muse 08:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/z/User_talk%7ESCZenz_5641.html"