Jump to content

User talk:SCZenz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 84.134.102.27 (talk) at 18:30, 21 May 2008 (→International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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/Archive10. Sections without timestamps are not archived

Pre-admin archives:

Post-admin archives:

Werdnabot archives:

Chris Frangou page

hi. just wondering why i am unable to create a Chris Frangou article? its says he isnt notable but he meets wikipedia's criteria. thanks!--Chrisjazzbass (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Admin Coaching Re-confirmation

Hello, previously you expressed interest in participating in the Wikipedia:Admin coaching project. We are currently conducting a reconfirmation drive to give coaches the opportunity to update their information and capacity to participate in the project. Please visit Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status to update your status. Also, please remember to update your capacity (5th table variable) in the form of a fraction (eg. 2/3 means you are currently coaching 2 students, and could accept 1 more student). Thank you. MBisanz talk 09:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Very Large Hadron Collider

I have nominated Very Large Hadron Collider, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Very Large Hadron Collider. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? RogueNinjatalk 02:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review for the list of baryons

Hi,

I noticed that you had an interest in particle physics, so I wondered you could head over the List of baryons and Talk:List of baryons pages a give some feedback. I'm currently trying to bring that article to Featured List status, but I'm not a particle physicist so I probably made half a dozen mistakes. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks in advance. [[::User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] ([[::User talk:Headbomb|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]]) 21:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


Reply to Question about deleted article

HI, I wrote an artilce, "Aston Number" that you deleted. I want you to know that the aston number is used at two universities for the purposes stated. If it must remain deleted as is, please send me the article and allow me to succeed or fail at revising it up to wikipedia standards. I'll send it to you before it gets reposted. I would really appreciate that. may 2, 2008



"I will gladly grant your request if you can provide any sources which would call into question my initial judgment that the article was a collection of obfuscatory jargon designed to cover the introduction of an obscenity into Wikipedia under the guise of mathematical notation."

Of course the idea that my purpose was the "introduction of an obscenity into Wikipedia under the guise of mathematical notation" is complete nonsense. The use of As is already taken in chemical separations. I should think that someone with your experience would not look into non existent hidden meanings in mathematical notation. At any rate, your judgment of obfuscation is unequivocally correct... Please, again I cordially request that you return to me the original article text. This will allow me to more easily make it serious and informative. Also, I will be able to describe in detail how it is truly used. I will leave it up to you to decide if it is worthy or not, previous to its posting.


Thanks so much for your help.

Luke Lukeprizer (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


no prob. give me the article. Lukeprizer (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a copy of the original text and it would make it much easier if I could use that text. Thanks for your help.Lukeprizer (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centrifugal force

Per your note on WP:FTN: HELP! See talk:Centrifugal force. I don't want to get into an edit war, but this editor refuses to see logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plvekamp (talk • contribs) 16:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm afraid he's at it again: see this diff, where the whole package of ideas is shoved back in again after having been removed for lack of references, complete with an edit comment that says "this has got nothing to do with references." Please also see my most recent comment on his talk page. (I've also cc'd this to the noticeboard.) -- The Anome (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes by Maxwell and Bernoulli, fully verified but deleted.

SCZenz, you saw what user Plvekamp did to my verified quotes by Maxwell and Bernoulli. What did you do about it?David Tombe (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the centrifugal force real or Fictitious?

SCZenz, if Anome opens up a section entitled 'Is the centrifugal force real or Fictitious?' then don't be surprised if somebody attempts to clarify the matter.

I wasn't the one who first mentioned the real effects. It was Anome. Anome was the one who re-worded the introduction and talked about real effects.

All I was doing was segregating the real effects from the fictitious effects in terms of co-rotation and the Bucket argument.

The article is in too much of a mess for you to be removing simple clarification comments on the specious grounds that they constitute original research.

You have been far too hasty to take on board false allegations from certain persons who have been alleging that I have been trying to push an unorthodox view. You didn't fully check out your facts before you decided to take sides.

Your reversion was just mindless spitefullness. David Tombe (talk) 09:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Edit War

SCZenz, you have already proved that you are not on the side of wikipedia policy. You dismissed perfectly legitimate citations by Bernoulli and Maxwell on totally specious grounds.

And don't tell me not to remove sourced material. Just because material is sourced doesn't mean it has to be there. There are other issues to consider such as relevance and coherence. People are removing sourced material all the time and it doesn't cause a problem.

At the moment you are engaged in wikistalking. Anome went to you to complain because he didn't understand the issue. Anome didn't understand that the real effects only occur BECAUSE they are in a state of rotation.

But rather than investigate the matter properly, you simply decided that you would enter the field and delete evrything that I write. You believed his claim that I was trying to insert unorthodox material into the argument, and you told Anome that you would sort the matter out.

Your argument about Maxwell's and Bernoulli's statements not indicating that they believed that centrifugal force is real, was total rubbish. It was sheer deceitful rubbish and it would be laughed out of any fair hearing on the matter. David Tombe (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SCZenz, regarding the edits by the IP server beginning 72, I have got absolutely nothing to do with them. David Tombe (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence

Please update the site.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SCZenz&oldid=213999693"