User talk:Ryan4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Ryan4, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Karmafist 16:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:RayMcGovern.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RayMcGovern.jpg. 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 02:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Bro, it wasnt me [1]. Somebody else did that. I didnt delete anything [2]. --Striver 21:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Francisco Gil-White

Self-promotion is severely frowned on in Wikipedia, especially by people who want to promote their own opinion pieces in multiple articles. Furthermore, web sites of the nature of blogs, which is what your site is, are not regarded as suitable sources. Please stop linking to it. --Zero (Wikipedia administrator) 5:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] re help on Vincent Cannistraro

Citation of reliable sources is always a requirement (policy WP:CITE and WP:RS), so your offer to add them is pretty much a solid requirement. Provided they are properly cited and presented then there shouldn't be a requirement for someone else to remove them. They of course can however cite other sources offering a different perspective on the matter. --pgk(talk) 15:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have now added them. Are my citations acceptable? Ryan4 23:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vincent Cannistraro

This Vincecan, who claims to be Vincent Cannistraro, repeatedly removes claims that are footnoted and sourced, without providing a single counter claim or footnote to back up what he is saying. What are the wikipedia guidlines about someone who does this? Is this not vandalism? Ryan4 18:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Now, Mike60 is doing the same thing. Ryan4 18:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not really vandalism, it appears to be a content dispute. WP:AUTO explains "Avoid writing or editing articles about yourself" - point the editor to that. Apart from that, try to work with the user and get a resolution. Can you provide an alternate to the source they keep removing etc. Wikipedia:Resolving disputes has ways to handle content disputes like this, but just try to be productive and communicative, and keep your cool.--Commander Keane 18:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I should also mention the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Do not revert any single page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours. (Or else an Administrator may suspend your account). --Commander Keane 19:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are you now threatening me with suspending my account? These two users are deleting all the verifiable, sourced material and just stating a bunch of claims without references. Why haven't you gone to their user pages and explained the 3 revert rule to them?! The vandalism page says that any attempt to remove material is considered vandalism. We are not arguing about nuances of content here. Vincean and Mike60 simply are removing material that they don't like, the fact that it has been reported in the Washington Post, UPI and AP is immaterial to them. They have not offered any explanation to defend their claims, and they throw blanket statements such as 'propaganda' and 'left-wing' or 'right-wing' in an attempt to discredit what I have documented. This is absurd. Ryan4 19:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a threat, it was a warning about what could happen. I won't be blocking your for 3RR, but another admin might - and I don't want you to get blocked. It was warning for your benefit. A minute before you wrote your comment me I issued a warning to Mike 60.--Commander Keane 19:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Case: mass-to-charge ratio

You have indicated that you are willing to accept an assignment as a mediator. I have assigned this case to you. If you don't want to take the case on, just say so at the bottom of the request, delegate it to someone else and update the case list accordingly. Before you begin the mediation please read the suggestions for mediators. You can also review earlier mediation cases to get an understanding for possible procedures.
--Fasten 10:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feed Back about your mediation

[edit] your Mediator response

The Wikipedia guidlines about NPOV and No Original Research are all that's important here. The article should not be mostly about how m/z is a silly unit (something which I actually agree with), but rather explain the history of where the unit comes from, what the accepted standard is, IE the IUPAC definition, and then briefly a short summary of other units that are also acceptable, their relation to m/z, and their pros and cons. It should not be a platform for one user to soapbox on how the Physical Chemistry community need to change their definitions. I would ask that user:195.186.150.165 please refrain from trying to convince people that he is right on the talk page, because this is simply not the issue. This is an encyclopaedia, and should reflect the accepted standard, especially when there is an entire body that exists that sets such standards (IUPAC). The fact that these standards may not be completely justified is should not be the point of the article. If you want to change the unit, write an article, have it published in a respectable journal, and then add it to external links section. Ryan4 16:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my feedback

Hi Ryan, thank you for your mediation with which I mostly agree. However, I have some points that I would like to mention:

  • the initial problem started because someone hijaked the mass-to-charge ratio page, deleted all m/q (which is acepted by most scientists) and replaced it by m/z (which is a mass spec internal notation, used by some but not by all mass spec people.) I assume this vandalism was done by the person who now asked for the mediation, however, I annot prove it.
  • this vandalism started the discussion about m/z
  • in order to be fair to the minority m/z view, I kept a long portion about m/z. I am the first to agree that it is unecessary and too long because it states a minority view. The vast majority of science uses m/q.
  • your evidence for advocacy is from the discussion page, not the article. I was under the impression that on the discussion page it is ok to discuss the m/z issue.
  • I am not trying to convince anyone, but I would like to have m/z not overrepresented on the mass-to-charge page because it is a minority term.
  • the IUPAC is an organization of chemists only, not representing most of the fields using mass-to-charge ratio which are located in physics
  • the IUPAC orange book and gold book do contradict to the IUPAC green book which is written by physical chemists and which is much better than the sloppy gold and orange book written by analytical chemists. m/z is not compatible with IUPAC green book.
  • many mass spectrometrists (including myself) do not use m/z. Claiming otherwise is POV.
  • the real discussion is not about m/z or m/q but it is about wether the mass-to-charge ratio is a physical unit of dimension mass/charge or wether it is a dimensionless unit. As someone who is interested in physics you may understand that I have real problems seeing a dimensionless m/z on the mass-to-charge ratio page. It is the equivalent to have, for example, the "electronic charge" in the article of the "electric current".
  • the definition of m/z is unclear, people use it very differently, some as a mass, some as a mass/charge some as a dimensionless quantity. Only in the second case it should be mentioned on the mass-to-charge ratio page.
  • I did propose to Nick to make his own m/z page
  • m/z is not "the accepted standard" for mas-to-charge ratio, it is a minority concept that is accepted by the chemical IUPAC only, and according to this "accepted standard" it is not a mass to charge ratio but a dimensionless quantity.
  • BTW: m/z is not a unit, as you claim
--Kehrli 11:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
"the real discussion is not about m/z or m/q but it is about wether the mass-to-charge ratio is a physical unit of dimension mass/charge or wether it is a dimensionless unit. As someone who is interested in physics you may understand that I have real problems seeing a dimensionless m/z on the mass-to-charge ratio page. It is the equivalent to have, for example, the "electronic charge" in the article of the "electric current".
This is the problem that I think you're either misunderstanding or too stubborn about your POV to accept. Whether or not you want to discuss the usage of m/z it still is accepted by IUPAC, which btw is not in any way a minority but reflects majority opinion amongst chemists. The wiki entries on notations, standards, units and the like should reflect nothing other than what bodies like IUPAP, IUPAC, and ISO, etc. deicide. I think you'll at least concede that your particular view about m/z is far more of a minority position than that of IUPAC's? Because I agree with you, I said that you should be allowed the opportunity to add a brief explanation of why there may be confusion, along with a discussion of other units, and to add an external link to any reputable journal where there has been a discussion of the problems of m/z. Your most recent edit still looks like an attempt to completely discredit the concept of m/z altogether, which is still your POV.

Please keep the rest of the discussion about this mediation on the mediation page. Ryan4 16:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, look, I do not want to get into a discussion with you, but:

  • as you correctly say, the IUPAC only represents chemists, and not all other science that uses mass-to-charge ratio. This is my point. Chemists are a minority in the field of science and their POV should not be over represented in Wikipedia.
  • the m/z contradicts to the IUPAC green book, which is more universal than the orange book which only discusses mass spec terminology.

Hence, we have two contradictory IUPAC rulings. Therefore, according to the Wikipedia policy, Nick should not use only the IUPAC document that is backing his arguments, and ignore the other which is more general.

Also, I want you to note that Nick's definition of m/z is not the one used in the IUPAC orange book. Therefore it is his personal POV. As the mediator in this case, I beg you to review this fact. In the IUPAC definition m/z is dimensionless. In Nick's definition it is a mass. Please do the dimensional analysis of Nicks formula in the m/z discussion page in this section Talk:Mass-to-charge_ratio#Nominated_for_POV_Check.

Then, Nick always states that m/z and m/q in thomson are identical. This is his POV and it is wrong. As someone who understands physics you have to know that something that is dimensionless (or a mass) cannot be the same as a quantity mass/charge. Please make him stop changing this.

Then: please stop charging me with being POV. I am not. The sentence that you cited was on the discussion page (where POV would even be allowed), and it was taken out of context. Nick was saying that m/z is more practical than m/q (which is his POV), and I was asking for a single reason or an example that proves his point. I did never intend to express that chemists should not use m/z (which would be POV). Also, I took great effort in removing any POV from the article. If you see any POV, please let me know, but don't just charge me of beeing POV without any examples. Kehrli 14:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

Hi Ryan, replied on the article talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop spamming

You've been asked before to stop inserting identical links into multiple articles. You're being asked again. Stop. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

JPGordon - Answered on user page Ryan4Talk 18:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, Joshua appears to be wikistalking me too. He shows up on odd articles to revert me and has personal-attacked me a few times. Can't quite figure what drives the guy. Justforasecond 23:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding commercial or personal-website links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. I see you've been warned before. Please stop. Iorek85 08:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for spamming

 You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires.

-- ChrisO 15:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invite

You are invited to participate in WikiProject Philadelphia, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about Philadelphia. We are currently discussing prospects for the project. Your input would be greatly appreciated! 
--evrik 19:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philly meetup

Hi! There will be a Wikipedia Meetup in Philadelphia on 4 November. If you're interested in coming, RSVP by editing Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 2 to reflect the likelihood of your being able to attend. If you have any questions, feel free to ask CComMack's. Hopefully, we'll all see you (and each other) on the 4th! --evrik 19:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spamming again

You've been asked on plenty of previous occasions not to spam links to hirhome.com, and you've been blocked for it before, but you've been doing it again. hirhome.com is not a website that we should be linking to on anything for other than Francisco Gil-White's own article and things within his area of professional expertise (which does not mean his fringe theories on current events or history). I've just spent some considerable time cleaning out your spam - if you persist you will be blocked and hirhome.com will be blacklisted. This will be your final warning on the issue. -- ChrisO 00:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Mediation Cabal case

Good afternoon (GMT time); I have accepted a Mediation Cabal case - requested by Ryan4 - to which you are listed as a party. Mediation has commenced at the case page, where you are invited to participate.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via email or my talk page; I will try to answer all your questions as fully as possible in so far as it does not compromise my neutrality.

Kind regards,

User:Anthony cfc/Signature
10:29, Saturday June 14, 2008 (UTC)
Mediation is now active; please see the case page for more information. Thank you — anthony[cfc] 20:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal case

Your input is required at the Mediation location; of particular note is the intended compromise, located here. Please give your input - if you do not, the compromise may be implemented without your opinion, and therefore may not be compilable with what you wish for from the case.

Kind regards,
~ Anthony 20:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The case has been closed; unfortunately, there was no response to Mediation Stage 2 from you, and the compromises were formed without your input. Please note that a finding of the Mediation was that your addition of links was in violation of Wikipedia:External links, an official Wikipedia Guideline, and future additions will be removed; please note that a secondary finding of the Mediation was that a sysop has grounds to block you if you continue to add links in violation of policy.
Full details are available at the Mediation case page and location; full details on the compromises established by consensus are available here.
Kindest regards,
Anthony 22:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia Pennsylvania

Hello there!

I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:

Thanks and I hope you join up! Cbrown1023 talk 04:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)