User talk:JustinWick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow, let me be the first to welcome you to Wikipedia. Thank you for your wonderful articles. A high-quality contributor from the beginning -- gotta love it.  :-) You obviously know the basics, but here are some tips for learning more about this (rather addictive) site: You might like to start by reading the tutorial and introducing yourself at the new users page. Two useful tips are that you can sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) and you can practice editing by using the Sandbox. You can regularly find new tips on the Community Portal. I look forward to reading your great articles and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. If you have any questions, you can ask at the help desk or on my talk page. :-) SWAdair | Talk 10:38, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Thanks on RP 2 "rather misguided" edits by Fresheneesz 3 Your edits on Relativistic mass 4 Difference of Gaussians 5 wavelets 6 19th century now COTW 7 FAC quotes 8 You helped choose {{subst:IDRIVEtopic article}} as this week's WP:ACID winner 9 users by alma matter 10 ArbCom election 11 Vote Outcome 12 New Main Page Election talks 13 Practical Editing Question 14 SED 15 featured articles 16 Image copyright problem with Image:Bart_Selman.gif 17 Good thoughts 18 RfC At Star Sonata 19 Anecdotal Evidence 20 Ubernosy question 21 Talk:Irreducible complexity 22 Thanks for comments regarding Diode modelling 23 Image Tagging Image:Coronagraph example.gif 24 Cornell 25 Physics Article WIP proposal 26 Psychohistorian

[edit] Thanks on RP

Thanks for your fixes to RP. It was totally backwards — I can't believe I didn't notice it sooner. Keep up the good fact-checking. Deco 09:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "rather misguided" edits by Fresheneesz

Hi, I'm pretty sure my edits were correct information. But I will use the discussion for this issue. What exactly do you think is misguided about relating entropy to free energy? Am I incorrect in saying that entropy is related to free energy? Fresheneesz 19:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

- I also noticed you reverted my change on the arrow of time page. Granted, I misspelled entropy (i think), but I think the word "disorder" is misused by many people who don't understand the concept of thermodynamic disorder. It is much more intuitive to talk about "trapped energy" or the non free energy. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy tends to increase over time, therefore the free energy tends to decrease over time. Disorder is often confused with "disorganization" - which is a horribly misguided connection. Please discuss this change with me. Fresheneesz 20:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, i see what you're saying about free enery. And in editing i've thought more about it, and I've found i'm no longer sure about it. What I *am* sure about is that the article on entropy has many references to the "energy unavailable to do work" - even stated at the top of the page as the product S*T_R. My idea of free energy is consistant with lots of the information on that page - however that information might be wrong, inaccurate, or misleading in the first place.

Also, I thought your comment was interesting: "certainly you understand that even a maximally disorded system can have energy extracted from it with the use of a low temperature sink". I had a feeling that this must be the case - but I thought the concept of entropy was in opposition to this thought. Then again, I don't really believe in entropy anyway ;-) . I'm not quite sure what you mean by low temperature sink - in a fully disordered system those don't exist (unless you create it?).

My understanding of entropy is that its an approximation used for macroscopic cases involving heat - and doesn't neccessarily relate to energy in general. For example, it is highly unlikely for total entropy to increase - but us humans have a knack for the improbable. In otherwords, us humans could in theory consistantly induce a highly unlikely state that would allow entropy to consistantly decrease. Entropy seems to me a model for the world where improbable things like machines don't exist.

I like to think my understanding of entropy is better than most - but I can't say I understand it fully or even close. As a chemistry student I was frustrated when the concept of Entropy was discussed in misleading and erroneous ways, one of those things was the "increase of disorder" - a phrase which made no sense and was never explained. My point in being on a page about a subject I hate is to make it correct and above all *understandable* so that people don't end up in my situation again (granted they learn their stuff from wikipedia). Fresheneesz 07:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that entropy should be described as the information content in a system in addition to the other couple of ways to describe it. I would support your idea of putting the statistical mechnics idea in more light - I think it is important to give people new and more correct information on this site - rather than information that is in every basic textbook in existance. I think if entropy can be related to free energy - that should be noted. I suppose it probably shouldn't be noted as strongly as my edits did, but it should be there nonetheless.

- btw, when you mentioned Thomas Gold - i was interested in the contradiction between one of his "pet thoeries" and conservation of momentum. What was the pet theory, and what contradiction did it produce? PS. you should add that quote to the page on Thomas Gold. - Many of the edits I do are about classes i'm taking right now in college. And, I admit, sometimes I have been a bit presumptuous. But I try to edit these pages in order for them to be more accurate, and less misleading - ultimately so they are more helpful. I greatly dislike the normal way of teaching people an appromation, feining it as truth - and then turning it around on students later. It seems more like a cruel joke than teaching. So right now WAS .something has reverted like 6 of my edits calling for a "source" when the edit was obviously correct given other information on the same page. I suppose the edits I made require discussion since they aren't the normal way things are given (unique is an aspect i see as good), but he hasn't been very receptive to discussion. I have been confused by fake truths like E=mc^2 in the past, and I don't want readers of wikipedia to be subject to the same thing. Fresheneesz 01:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits on Relativistic mass

On your recent edit of relativistic mass you commented that the "POV" is somewhat warrented but needs to but rewritten objectively. I think it is a bad idea to trash the semi-warrented parts - but instead to discuss it, or to correct them yourself. Trashing it lead to the information just being lost over time, don't you agree? Fresheneesz 09:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the edits you reverted weren't my edits. They've been on the page for a while now (since the page's second edit), and they might need some consolidation, but the "POV" is one that is held by many physicists. I think one may state a POV, if they state whos point of view it was - for example, it is a *fact* that many physicists have the POV that the term is obsolete. I'll probably look at it more later next week or something if noone gets around to fixing it up. Fresheneesz 19:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Difference of Gaussians

Greetings, I saw the article so soon after it was created because I was watching Recent changes, a link available under the globe at the left hand side of the screen. Often Wikipedians watch that so they can spot and revert vandalism (called RC Patrol). I've actually done less of this then what I call "Random article" patrol; hitting that link several times can turn up some weird stuff. But I do have a preoccupation with making sure articles are categorized, and that's most of what I do with the Random article button and sometimes with Recent Changes.

As for the appropriate category with this one, math is not my stuff; I simply Googled it, and I saw websites describing it as an algorithm. But, in my opinion, if you give something a wrong category or a category that's too general, people will at least see it, and can give it something more specific or more appropriate if they're more familiar with how Wikipedia categorizes their areas of expertise.

Cheers, CanadianCaesar 19:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] wavelets

Answered on my talk page. In short, I'm interesested in wavelets because of thier applicability to number theory, and in particlar, some recent work on the Riemann hypothesis. Thus, I wanted to have a article that provided a clean formal definition suitable for "pure math" that wasn't laden with engineering terms. linas 00:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

See also, for example, dyadic solenoid and solenoid group. The "dyadic" that occurs in wavelets is useful precisely because of its connection to p-adic numbers and p-adic analysis. linas 00:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 19th century now COTW

This article has been selected as the new Collaboration of the Week! Thanks for your support! — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-12 03:27

[edit] FAC quotes

Hi. Would you mind modifying the quotes you recently added to the FAC pages for Majora's mask and Prostate Cancer? At present they spill very far to the side and force Firefox to add a horizontal scrollbar. Thanks. The Catfish 04:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've edited them (as per your request on my talk page. I changed it from a single space before the quote to 2 colons (::). But I just noticed that it could be enclosed in as well. Good luck with your project! The Catfish 21:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You helped choose {{subst:IDRIVEtopic article}} as this week's WP:ACID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week {{subst:IDRIVEtopic article}} was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

[edit] users by alma matter

More and more of us are getting this added to our user pages, you might wanna do the same: Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Cornell University Cornell Rockey 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom election

Thank you for your vote in the Arbitration Committee elections. I fear I may have misled you slightly with my opening statement and given you the impression that I am reluctant to serve on the Arbitration Committee. In fact I would very much like to, but I expressed reluctance because every minute spent on arbitration duties is a minute not spent on article writing and improving. I regard the Arbitration Committee as a valuable body which helps the project by sorting out disputes which wouldn't be sorted out elsewhere, and I would enjoy and appreciate the opportunity of serving on it. However it does occur to me that this may be a polite way of hiding a much more serious objection to my approach and if this is so, then you are entitled to your vote and I am sorry to take up your time. David | Talk 10:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back. I have had a few others making comments on the same lines and tried to counter them by putting a codicil on my statement, but didn't think it quite fair to go in and change the statement retrospectively as some people complained about other candidates doing that. The election has just over two days to run with the number of voters falling, so you get the personal touch! I appreciate the difficulty all voters have with so many candidates, a large number of which were new users who stood in good faith but did not have any real chance. This may be something to correct for next time. David | Talk 23:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote Outcome

Hello JustinWick. Thank you for your encouragement. No problem with the jibe at my profession. I have responded to your comments at some length on my talk page.--Edivorce 17:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Main Page Election talks

A discussion has begun on how to handle an official election for replacing the Main Page. To ensure it is set up sensibly and according to consensus, your input is needed there. --Go for it! 22:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Practical Editing Question

I'm working on significant edits of the Mediation article. I've begun by posting comments on the talk page signaling my intention to make changes. My question is: What is an appropriate period time to wait for responses? I would appreciate your advice. --Edivorce 14:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding and the wider comments on bold editing.--Edivorce 16:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SED

FY, I replied to your question about SED on my talk page. linas 00:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] featured articles

Hi Justin, thanks for the kind words. I'm glad you enjoyed the article. And I can identify with you—before I got welding featured, I was excited to get my first one featured. That was the roughest FAC that I've been through so far, mostly because I didn't fully understand the various requirements. Nowadays, I know what to expect, and so I haven't been surprised by anything major on my last few nominations. But the excitement of a new FA hasn't rubbed off yet—I want to get to be part of the "frequent FA writers" group, whatever that might mean. User:Emsworth has like 50 of them, so I don't think I'm going to get up to his status, but another 5-10 over the next few years would be awesome. Anyway, be sure to let me know when you start working on the article you want to get to FA status. I'd be happy to help you out however I can. As you're trying to choose the article to work on, make sure it's something for which you can get a few good book references or alot of online references, and go for it. It's tough, but it's worth it =). --Spangineer (háblame) 04:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Bart_Selman.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Bart_Selman.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you. -- Carnildo 09:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good thoughts

I noticed you've changed your user page. There are some good thoughts there on Wikipedia...at least I find myself agreeing with much of what you wrote :-) Maybe one day I will get around to writing a short summary of my Wikipedia philosophy. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 10:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I've added the Wikipedians by alma mater category to your user page and used the proper syntax for CornellRockey's message; your talk page was showing up in the category listing instead of your user page. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 10:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC At Star Sonata

Thanks for your comments at Star Sonata. (Signed: J.Smith) 21:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You should check out some of the resent edits at Star Sonata. The anon editor is acting brillant as usual. (Signed: J.Smith) 08:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anecdotal Evidence

Hi, saw your RfC on this. I am not aware there was an "edit war" over this. What qualifies? On the mundane level, how long does an RfC last? Where is this one listed? How are they requested? Many thanks. Look forward to hearing from you. The Invisible Anon 22:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a few points [[1]] :The Invisible Anon 14:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Just so that you know, having met all the objections, this being the final comment [[2]], Tearlach has changed tack to a factual accuracy dispute [[3]] without further comment or reply. I still believe this is and was a hoax RfC and this latest turn does nothing but reinforce that view. The Invisible Anon 18:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ubernosy question

"why edit anonymously if you feel strongly about your edits? It has been my experience that editors often take anon edits less seriously... also login names do not appear to be easy to trace back to real world individuals"

This is one of the conundrums of Wiki. Mostly editors are anonymous so it is really funny when people with IP addresses are referred to as "anon" and you quite rightly point out that IP addresses can be traced albeit the users may not always be that use them. Having a sign on does not prevent other users having multiple sock puppets or using IP addresses themselves. This hoax RfC is an example.

The Invisible Anon 11:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Which if it was anything, was not an answer. Please have a look at the current RFC You are mentioned in it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/86.10.231.219 Midgley 20:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Irreducible complexity

Before you get too involved in this, you should know that tisthammerw (Wade A. Tisthammer) through hard work has earned a reputation at creationism related articles as a chronic malcontent with a long history of disruption by ignoring both consensus and evidence while conducting a pov campaign. This started at Intelligent design, then Second Law of Thermodynamics, and now Irreducible complexity. Because of this he's earned a permanent place on the "crank list" of many editors. I can't begin to count the innumerable man hours of good faith contributors he's wasted with bad faith objections, constantly shifting goalposts, and mendacious justifications for it all arising out of his own personal research [4] [5].

The only time I will spend on this editor is in minimizing his disruptions and cleaning up his messes; his history [6] [7] proves anything else is a complete waste. FeloniousMonk 06:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Adding that as currently SFAIK every single editor on that article concurs he is being disruptive and tendentious (except himself, of course) one further voice is unlikely to convince him to re-evaluate his position. OTOH, if you are willing to wade in (no pun intended), you are more than welcome! KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

My attempted reforms on the intelligent design entry have often met with stiff resistance from both KillerChihuahua and FeloniousMonk, who sometimes seem to go on a smear campaign against me (as in this case) and occasional personal attacks[8]. Contrary to FeloniousMonk's claims, I have not, as far as I know, put forth original research. The accusation that "every single editor on that article concurs he is being disruptive" is also not true. A number of people as SanchoPanza and ant agreed that my objections were legitimate.[9] A number of other editors tried to make corrections, but are met with stiff resistance from avid ID opponents and then quit. As one editor put it in the forum for whether the entry should be a featured article (the end result being a rejection), "This is a good example of why articles should not be written and policed by the bitter opponents of the subject of the article." The issue and others like it invite heated emotions to clog up our vision--something that I have even been guilty of occasionally (though I hate to admit it). The heated emotions unfortunately make things like enforcing WP:CITE and WP:NOR more difficult than I would like, as well as bringing up uncivil attitudes and behavior.

I can perhaps take some consolation in that I did successfully remove the original research of the straw man kind regarding misconstrual of the creationist position in the second law of thermodynamics section (see Talk:Second_law_of_thermodynamics/creationism#creationism_2:_the_Return for more on this). I can only hope that an RfC will help bring new editors into the discussion with a fresh perspective. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page suggests to me that maybe you're frustrated that you haven't gotten as much response from your RfC that you'd like. I think that that's common with most processes on WP, even though there's a lot of editors here, there's also a lot of things to do, so RfCs or peer reviews, etc. may get few if any responses. I think that the key thing is to distill the issue to the key point that is in dispute, people don't have to understand the whole controversy to decide whether the von Bertalanffy quote constitutes original research. To get knowledgeable eyes on the issue you can 1) find the policy page that is relevant (probably WP:NOR in this case) and if the policy page itself doesn't make the issue clear, then ask for clarification on the talk page, this will help bring in people who are experienced in dealing with this kind of issue. You can also make a request on the talk page of related subjects (maybe Talk:Intelligent Design or Talk:Evolution). All of these things can bring in more opinions that can help lead to concensus if all parties are working in good faith. It's always best to assume that others are working in good faith, but I see that it's been suggested that some parties are not working in good faith. That makes everything more difficult. Once you've exhausted other options, you might want to go to the talk page of WP:AGF and ask for advice on how to deal with someone who seems not to be working in good faith. If this person has a history of making things difficult for other editors then mediation or arbitration may be called for. Matt 13:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for comments regarding Diode modelling

Hi Justin!

Thanks for your comments regarding the article I wrote called Diode modelling. Please excuse the very long delay between you posting your message and me replying. As this is the first time for me to contribute to the Wikipedia I wasn't expecting much feedback on the article and so did not check my User Talk Page. I now realise that it is important for me to do so! What's more, I had trouble logging in for months: I didn't realise that usernames had to be case sensitive!

Regarding your comment about Wikipedia articles formatted like and encyclopedia: They say that necessity is the mother of invention; the reason why I wrote the Diode Modelling article was because I was studying that topic at uni and had trouble understanding it. I borrowed a very heavy electronics book from the library but it was of no help. What shocked me the most was that an internet search brought up nothing. So when I finally got my head round it, I decided to write it up. I feel that the nature of the topic is why it is written in a textbook fashion. However, I am more than happy for you to give me any ideas on how to make this more encyclopedia like.

Amr Bekhit 00:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Coronagraph example.gif

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Coronagraph example.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Denniss 00:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cornell

I have just started WikiProject Cornell University, an attempt to thoroughly cover topics related to Cornell. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Thanks! —mercuryboard^talk 05:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Physics Article WIP proposal

Hello, as an editor who has previously added to the Physics article and taken part in discussions on its talk page I thought a current proposal may be of interest to you. Over the past few months the article has suffered from a lack of focus and direction. Unfortunately the article is now judged by a number of editors to be in a relatively poor state. There is currently a proposal to start a full consensus based review of the article. That review and consensus process has been proposed here, your thoughts on the proposal and participation in the WIP review of the article would be much appreciated. It disappoints me that an article on one of the fundamental sciences here at wikipedia is in such a relatively poor state, and I hope you can have a browse by the page to offer your views and hopefully participate. Thanks, SFC9394 22:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychohistorian

I have found some good citations for use in the introduction to the Emergence article as you asked. They are from a physicist and make a very careful and balanced explanation of the meaning and implications of Emergence.

If you agree that Psychohistorian has been committing personal attacks, please review Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Psychohistorian and considering adding your endorsement to the relevant section. We have found quite an extensive history of the personal attacks and some sort of warning or censure is in order. Nothing substantial will happen to Psychohistorian either way but it would be nice to establish that personal attacks are not acceptable. Fourdee 18:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)