User talk:Lucent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Lucent! My name is Ryan, aka Acetic Acid. I noticed that you were new and haven't received any messages yet. I just wanted to see how you were doing. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it uses different formatting than other sites that use HTML and CSS. In the long run, though, you'll find that the WikiSyntax is a lot easier and faster than those other ways. Here are a few links to get you started:

There are a lot of policies and guides to read, but I highly recommend reading over those first. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Please be sure to sign your name on Talk Pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? :)

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a nice day. Sincerely, Ryan 10:39, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps they should be GFDL instead of PD? If I recall correctly, I took some (not all) of the pictures from UT Athletics, not from the Public Relations. And some were wallpapers free for downloading. But if you insist on taking those pics off, that is fine. I can replace them with pics from my very own camera (which will look almost exactly similar to the pics already on the page).--Zereshk 17:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Contributions

Hey, thanks for the message. Your contributions seem okay. Doesn't look like you broke any rules. I see you reverted a bit of vandalism. Good job catching it. ;) Keep up the good work. You look like you're on the right track. Acetic Acid 01:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UT pics

I replaced over half of the pics on the University of Tennessee page with my own photos. I replaced the pics I thought might raise questions about copyright vios. The other remaining pics, either I did not put up, or are from UT atheletics, or did not have copyright issues as I recall. But I think everything should be OK now. --Zereshk 07:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tilman Hausherr

Can you please revisit the AFD debate on this man. Apparently he's a well-known scientology critic and not just a programmer. - Mgm|(talk) 09:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

  • After reading the other article about him, he sounds pretty cool. But a scientology critic seems sub-encyclopedic to me. I'm going to withdraw because Wikipedia is big on a lot of "small" things like open source software and Japanese animation, and apparently Scientology. --Lucent 09:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pan-African Congress

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! --Allen3 talk 21:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Based on your comments, I have done a little research and changed the redirect into a simple stub. --Allen3 talk 00:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rsvpair

"Borderline sociopathic"? Please find a way to express yourself without personal attacks. "Complete lack of respect for Wikipedians and their community" is completely wrong. If you take a look at Template talk:US-airport you will see that they are willing to engage in discussion about ways to work with, not against, the Wikipedia community. Whether or not you think their link and their information belong on Wikipedia, you must behave civilly towards these new Wikipedia users. FreplySpang (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New PT based on QM

Hi Lucent.

You deleted my entry about New Periodic table based on quantum numbers from "Periodic table" article on the basis of "new research". But I believe that it should not be classified as such because the "New PT", that I reffered to in my edit, has been listed for a long time at meta-synthesis.com that, in turn, is listed among the external references under the Periodic table article.

I do not see why I can not pull out info from the sources listed as references to the article? Drova (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I find this funny in that it seems you're trying to trap me in a maze of circular logic. That only works on Star Trek against the Borg. Meta-synthesis is not a reference, it's an external link. If you succeed in moving that link to the references section without opposition, I'll concede.--Lucent (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to trap you. I just misspoke. I meant "external link". I know that few articles (not mine) are in the works that were going to mention the New PT. One of them in "Foundations of Chemistry" by Dr.Philip Stewart of Oxford. The other, by Dr.Katya Walter from Austin, TX. I am not sure if they were printed yet, I have to find them. For now it will be kept among external links.

The Table is modified Left Step Periodic Table of Janet (1928) that shows quantum number "n" directly, follows the Madelung rule and allows easy readout of electronic configurations, which is extremely helpful for thouse who has to explain it to students. See this page. Drova (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need to add Left step Periodic table

How come article on Periodic Table does not have anything on Janet's Left Step Periodic Table, that lists spdf blocks in correct order in accordance with l=0,1,2,3.... while, it features such theoretically insignificant tables as the so called "alternative vertical" PT. [alternative vertical PT]? How about alternative IUPAC PT shown upside down? Would it be also acceptable? It would still list subshell blocks incorrectly, just like the normal one. The numerous books and articles were written about LSPT since 1928. This situation needs to be fixed.

Drova (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that none of these "alternatives" are actually alternative; just simple formatting changes to the standard design due to possible limitations of browsers or screen size. The vertical table is not an alternative. You're reaching for the sake of your own argument.
There are dozens of alternate periodic tables, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. Some, in my opinion, have advantages that outweigh the drawbacks as compared to the standard layout. If allowed three dimensions, I would expect aliens to point out elements on Stowe's periodic table in communication with us. Yours, for example, loses the continuity of atomic numbers. Is that a worthy tradeoff? Maybe it is. It's not for me to decide.
You have run into the Infomercial Dilemma in your attempt to promote what you believe to be a superior product. Infomercials very often offer products that are technically superior replacements to things we already use. The problem is that they 1) either make tradeoffs we are unwilling to make, or 2) are insufficiently better to warrant replacement. For the sake of argument, let's assume your problem is the second. To get a new generation to start using Ginsu knives or an alternative periodic table, it can't just be 10% better because the investment to reacclimate and replace the standard is much more than 10%. It must be two or three times better to supplant the status quo.
I wish you luck in promoting your specific rendition, but Wikipedia is absolutely not the place to take such a stand. Wikipedia is not an evaluator of scientific claims or arguments. Wikipedia is, by definition and purpose, the last place you will see your new periodic table, if it does successfully replace the current standard. If it's here before scientific journal articles, the back of textbooks, and other web sites, we are not doing our job as encyclopedia editors in consolidating scientific consensus.--Lucent (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Lucent,

I just stumbled on discussion about Adomah PT in one of the forums. I think this exchange would be a good answer to you comments: Canadian Content Forum.

(P.S. I am not a memeber of that forum.) Drova (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)