Revision as of 13:14, 12 August 2006 editKehrli (talk | contribs)834 edits →Note on template use← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:22, 12 August 2006 edit undoAherunar (talk | contribs)3,963 editsm →Note on template use: fixNext edit → | ||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
:: regarding the disruptive behaviour of Nick and his constant pushing of minority POV I would say the line between vandalism and content dispute (he no longer uses arguments to prove his case, he just uses lobbying) is very blurred. | :: regarding the disruptive behaviour of Nick and his constant pushing of minority POV I would say the line between vandalism and content dispute (he no longer uses arguments to prove his case, he just uses lobbying) is very blurred. | ||
:: What would you recommend I should do? --] 12:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC) | :: What would you recommend I should do? --] 12:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
:::Nobody forced you to do anything. You can do whatever you like, and the only thing to keep in mind is follow the rules. Putting a warning is to remind the user not to do something that breaks the rule - which is of no value if you are "forced to do it". Moreover, I think you have a major misunderstanding of what Vandalism is. Vandalism is, from ], ''"any addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia."'' Filing a RFA is absolutely not vandalism, and your warning template in his user talkpage is a misuse. You can simply keep your head cool, read more about the rules, and be nice. Wikipedians here generally give people a lot of chances. Good luck. ]]] 13:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:22, 12 August 2006
Hi Kehrli, I will support you in the argument that m/z is not unitless, because it clearly is not. People claiming that it is are apparently using a stupid trick whereby they divide the mass and the charge by 1 Dalton and the elementary charge to form supposedly unitless quantities. Idiocy. In that case, we can make anything unitless. Like, we can make my heaight to mass ratio unitless by dividing my mass by 1 kg, and my height by 1 m. What does it accomplish? Nothing. I agree with you 100%. Spectrometrists seem to have had a hard time with units over the decades, inventing such perverse things as the "wavenumber," (cm
m/z
Yo. My name's Corbin. I understand your frustration. Listen, the guys at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Physics might be able to help you out with reforming the concensus on this particular scientific unit. Leave a note on the talk page, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics, and see if anybody's interested. We have rules here, and they can be a royal pain in the ass sometimes (not unlike Imperial Standard), but as a community we try to be constructive, not destructive. You have a username and you know what you're talking about in terms of knowledge. You can be a part of this grand experiment in creating a commonwealth of information. Drop me a line at User talk:CorbinSimpson if you need help, okay? Happy editing! - CorbinSimpson 04:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thanks
Ed, Corbin, thank you guys for your support. In some way this is really frustrating, but in another way this is a very exciting social experiment. Look at it this way: we try to fight a misconception that can very analytically be proven wrong. We try to explain this to smart people that should be experts in the field (the mass spectrometrists). If this is so hard, how can you ever hope to fight other misconceptions that can not analyticaly be proven (e.g. in politics) to common people that are not experts in the field? It is kind of frightning. Kehrli 14:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Why I voted "delete" on your article
Hi Kehrli, I noticed you apparently singled me out in your criticism of the deletion votes on your article. I can understand your frustration, and I will readily admit that I'm every bit as ignorant of this field as you thought I was.
My own (and I suppose many of the other voters') only reason for opposing this article has been the idea that Misplaced Pages should not be seen to advocate one thought over another, even if we have knowledgable editors here who are very certain that this thought is correct. Our policy on "Original research" states explicitly:
"An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following:
- it introduces a theory or method of solution;
- it introduces original ideas;
- it defines new terms;
- it provides new definitions of pre-existing terms;
- it introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
- it introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
- it introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source."
Now, you yourself say above that "we try to fight a misconception that can very analytically be proven wrong. We try to explain this to smart people that should be experts in the field (the mass spectrometrists)" - which seems to indicate the idea you are promoting is not commonly accepted knowledge among a significant part of the scientific community. In which case, Misplaced Pages is not the vehicle to tell these guys what to do and what not to do.
I think nobody would have a problem if you wrote something along the lines of "Many practicioners of mass spectrometry use the unit m/z; however, many other physicists have argued that this is incorrect, and that m/q should be used instead, for the following reasons..." That would certainly be useful addition. It would of course also be a matter of fairness to add why those other guys prefer m/z - surely, they must have some reason for doing so? --Lukas 20:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Nice job on Thomson (unit)
Just wanted to stop by and say that you did a fairly good job on Thomson (unit). It is still a little confusing but I think it isn't too misleading or incorrect. It isn't too much of a leap for the reader to figure things out given teh example. Congrats. One bit of criticism: your PDF link is to Groucho Marx?--Nick Y. 23:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the feed back. The article was on Kmurrays web site and he changed it into a Grucho Marx picture. Nice joke!
Mass Spectrum
I would like to invite you to discuss your totally disputed tag on Mass spectrum. Thank you for finding any errors, however you need to point them out for me to be able to correct them. I would remind you again that if you can not backup your claims with specific uses of m/q (Th) in the scientific literature within the context of mass spectrometry it will go nowhere. Please I am waiting for your sources not your interpretation of guidance documents and novel suggestions of what is the best path forward for the greater scientific community. Please act in good faith under the policies of wikipedia. Please stop removing my disputed tags on Thomson (unit) related articles. I am acting in good faith by not editing them but simply waiting for your sources and noting that it is in dispute. I very seriously dispute the content of those articles and have yet to see new sources added and those that are there contradict the content of the article. I have been very patient. I will not engage in an argument with you. Cite your sources and I will cite mine.--Nick Y. 17:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Arbitration
Please visit Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Kehrli and participate in our new binding arbitration proceedings regarding Thomson (unit), Mass-to-charge ratio, Mass spectrum and your behavior of removing dipute tags without stating a reason. See you there.--Nick Y. 17:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Note on template use
Please do not post warnings for vandalism on Nick Y.'s userpage. I do not believe he has engaged in any sort of vandalism. Rather, from what I have seen in RFA, there appears to be a content dispute.Aranherunar 12:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Aranherunar, I did not like to place this warning. Unfortunately I was forced to place it. By Nick and his disturbing behaviour. Here is a short list of what he did:
- Nick himself thinks this is no longer a content dispute and therefore requested RFA.
- Prior to this he requested a mediation which went quite well and we found strict rules for a truce. (I would leave alone his mass spectra article and he would leave alone the mass-to-charge ratio article.
- However, soon afterwards he engaged in a request for deletion of the mass-to-charge ratio article, thereby breaking the truce.
- Also, he repetedly placed tags on pages without giving reasons why.
- After I changed the article according to his wishes he still placed the tags
- When asked for references to prove his ideas to be in line with international conventions in ISO 31 he did not reply but just showed examples of old literature using outdated notations.
- regarding the disruptive behaviour of Nick and his constant pushing of minority POV I would say the line between vandalism and content dispute (he no longer uses arguments to prove his case, he just uses lobbying) is very blurred.
- What would you recommend I should do? --Kehrli 12:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Aranherunar, I did not like to place this warning. Unfortunately I was forced to place it. By Nick and his disturbing behaviour. Here is a short list of what he did:
- Nobody forced you to do anything. You can do whatever you like, and the only thing to keep in mind is follow the rules. Putting a warning is to remind the user not to do something that breaks the rule - which is of no value if you are "forced to do it". Moreover, I think you have a major misunderstanding of what Vandalism is. Vandalism is, from WP:VANDAL, "any addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." Filing a RFA is absolutely not vandalism, and your warning template in his user talkpage is a misuse. You can simply keep your head cool, read more about the rules, and be nice. Wikipedians here generally give people a lot of chances. Good luck. Aranherunar 13:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)