User talk:Rcq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, if you have a problem with me, please discuss it in a civil manner and I will be happy to try to help. Please do not resort to personal attacks. Gw e rnol 01:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I remember now. You were trying to add an article called The Certainty Principle which ended up being deleted as original research. If you believe the article was impropoerly deleted, you can ask for a review at deletion review. That gives you an opportunity to make your case to have the article reinstated. If you believe I acted improperly, you can go to Request for Comment and open a User-Conduct RfC. Again this will start a peer review process at which you can make your case about my conduct. Finally, if you believe that Wikipedia's original research policy itself is flawed, you can work to gain consensus with other editors at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research for a change. Best, Gw e rnol 01:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my talk page. I've removed the image again, as I find it offensive and I think that's your intention, particularly considering your descriptions of it such as: "This Uncertain Elephant should be used to award people who defend WP from the influence of original research too seriously."

To answer your questions:

1. Thanks for clearing up that you are not Slicky. Sorry for the confusion.

3. I don't know what you mean by formalist. If you mean I think Wikipedia is only valuable if it has limits on what may be contained here, then you are correct. I don't consider this being "too serious".

5. The certainty principle does not have an article in Wikipedia. You can see an archive of the discussion about whether it should be deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Certainty_Principle. As you can see from the discussion I did not express an opinion about whether it should be deleted or not, but the unanimous opinion of the community was it was not appropriate for Wikipedia.

Best, Gw e rnol 03:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What prompted you to give me the uncertain elephant award? A rather belated reaction to me supporting deletion of the "Certainty Principle" article? You are right. I do not approve of original research on Wikipedia. I leave that to real life. --Bduke 22:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

1 Welcome
2 Thanks!
3 THANKS!!!!11
4 The certainty principle (discussion)
- 4.1 Part I (excerption)
- 4.2 Part II
5 Personal attacks on User:linus
6 The Certainity Principle War
7 Image:Certain Elephant.png listed for deletion
8 Image:Certain Elephant.gif listed for deletion

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Rcq, 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:Questions, 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! —Khoikhoi 00:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Hey Rcq, thanks for the barnstar. :) What specific edit of mine are you referring to? —Khoikhoi 00:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks agian. —Khoikhoi 00:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] THANKS!!!!11

That was certainly the first elephantal-rectum-themed award I've ever gotten. It was GREAT!!!!!!!11!!!!one!

As others above mention, perhaps you might like to read Wikipedia:No original research in your spare time. This might explain to you why we took the action we did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle. There is no malice in the deletion, but you have to understand that the article violated an important criterion of inclusion in Wikipedia. If you think this policy should change, feel free to engage with people on that page (although I must mention that any change there is unlikely). --Deville (Talk) 12:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The certainty principle (discussion)

[edit] Part I (excerption)

This Certain Elephant should be used to award people who bring good new ideas to WP.

This Uncertain Elephant should be used to award people who defend WP from the influence of “original research” too seriously.

Oppose, not a good idea to have an award for bad behaviour. I'm guessing this is suppose to cut down on bad behaviour, but I'm quite sure that in some situations this may have the opposite effect, and in other situations it just ends up spreading badwill.--P-Chan 16:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain whose behavior you call bad, Slicky or Bduke? They both had good intentions and both wanted to make WP better. The problem is that Bduke believes that materials in WP must be taken from a "reputable" (i. e. American, or, in the worst case, Western) journal. Slicky believes that only content and importance of materials should be taken into account, and all scientists (including those from poor countries, which do not spend substantial money for PR) have the right to participate in the world science process. So, who of them is right? Rcq 23:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I do not believe anything of the kind. I have taught science in two universities in non-western countries, I do not come from America and I do not believe American sources are more reputable than other sources. The difference is that I follow Wikipedia policies and these do not allow "original research" and insist that verifiable sources have to be cited at least for anything that may be disputed. If Slicky really does believe what you say, then he is of course entitled to believe it, but it should not be used as a basis for editing Wikipedia. I think Rcq wants to change Wikipedia policies. These "awards" are not the way to go about it. Slicky's behaviour is not bad. He was just not following the policies for creating articles on wikipedia, so the article was deleted in good faith. --Bduke 00:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
For the record, dear Bduke, you just do not understand what you believe in. For example, the article Uncertainty principle is mainly based on the "original researches" of Heisenberg, Kennard, and Robertson. And that article, formally, violates WP policy. Why do not you suggest to delete it? The papers of Arbatsky are more "verifiable", just because they are more accessible. And it is very likely that, at the moment, there are more alive people, who have read his papers. And nobody, including you, have disputed their contents. Do not fight with Elephants. They are stronger than you. ;-))) Rcq 15:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. (1) Here "good new ideas" does not mean "OR". Unfortunately, in most cases, when somebody brings OR to WP, those ideas are not good. So, note, Certain Elephant is only for those, who bring good new ideas. (2) Uncertain Elephant was accepted by Khoikhoi, who likes the award. (3) I do not insist that the awards should be used widely in WP. As regards Bduke, the award was really deserved. :-) (4) As regards OR, I do not believe that the term is well-defined. I talked to Arbatsky (the author of the certainty principle)... Yes, it was kind of local publication, which does not really differ from self-publication. And what does it prove? The humankind will have to accept it, whether you like it or not. Rcq 00:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose; there seems to be a major misunderstanding of exactly what OR means; Uncertainty principle is in Wikipedia because it has been independently verified by peer review. Had Messrs. Heisenberg and Kennard posted uncertainty principle to Wikipedia instead of getting it peer reviewed, it would have been deleted. Telling people to Ignore All Rules is one thing; rewarding them for it is quite another. Besides which, encouraging people to post their original research to Wikipedia is effectively encouraging them to give up any patent/intellectual property rights they may be entitled (most patents are invalid if the information is already available to the public). smurrayinchester ^(Talk) 15:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but this is you, who has misunderstanding of something (or, in fact, of many things). (1) Arbatsky's papers are already published (they are publicly available, in juridical sense). And, as far as I know, he does not want to patent anything in them. (2) As far as I know, Arbatsky is not Slicky (who created the article in WP). (3) The papers were peer reviewed. How do you want to measure the "independence" of that peer review? In fact, you imply that the papers were not peer reviewed by referees from a "reputable" journal. But, as you can see from above, even Bduke cannot explain, which journals should be considered "reputable". Maybe you can? Your opinion is welcome. ;-) Rcq 20:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There is little point in continuing this debate, but I will leave it with a final point. Arbatsky's papers are publically available, but they have only been published, as far as I can see, in a self-publishing manner. There is no formal peer review. If you believe there was please state who exactly peer reviewed it and what was the consequence. It could of course have been peer reviewed for a scientific journal and rejected. His home page gives web links to the papers. It does not give links to any publication in a scientific journal, whether a reputable one or not. This is why the article was OR in the way that the uncertainty principle most certainly is not OR. This is not the place to argue whether Arbatsky is correct. If he is, he will publish it in a proper scientific journal and then someone can recreate the article citing the journal article. Also note that I was not asked to state what a reputable journal was. I was merely countering the assertion that I thought they were American journals. --Bduke 23:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Suppose I have come up with a theory that Tony Blair and Lionel Blair are the same person. I can come up with plenty of evidence (they've never been seen in the same room together, they're both male, they're both called Blair), but every peer-reviewed journal I've gone to has turned me down telling me that "this is a load of rubbish". Should I bring this new idea to Wikipedia? Should I be awarded a certain elephant for this? If another Wikipedian deletes this information, should they be punished with an uncertain elephant? (Incidently, for what counts as a reputable journal, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Which science journals are reputable?). smurrayinchester ^(Talk) 20:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

(1) If you really believe in the "idential Blairs theory" you can, of course, bring it to WP. But it is likely that other Wikipedians will say that "this is a load of rubbish" and will ask the proof. You will show your proofs, and it is unlikely that you would persuade anybody. Your article will be deleted, just because your idea is not good. And it is unlikely, that anybody would grant you the CE award. You can, of course, award your opponents UE, but the award will not be well-deserved in this case. (2) In the case of the certainty principle situation is completely different. The certainty principle is a mathematical theorem. The proof was published, and you can check it yourself. In fact, at least hundreds (more likely, thousands) of specialists have read it. Nobody has objections. As you can see, even Bduke agrees that the certainty principle "seems reasonable enough". It was deleted only because it is "original research". But, for example, Pythagorean Theorem is also "original research". And what does it proove? (3) UE cannot be considered "punishment": nobody can be forced to accept it. (4) As I said, the certainty principle was absolutely formally published. The publisher was Ch. Pyzhik, the journal was "Fontanka physics". Who exactly was the referee is kept in secret, as in other journals. The conclusion of the peer review was that papers are of very high quality, and they should be published. Rcq 15:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You really do not understand the WP policy on OR. Pythagorean Theorem is NOT "original research".

[edit] Part II

The journal "Fontanka physics" - please give a full citation for the paper. Give full details of this journal. I can find no reference to it on Google or Google Scholar. The first dozen or so references combine "Physics" with what appears to be a street called "Fontanka". Putting the two together as "Fontanka Physics" or "Fontanka physics" gives no hits on either Google or Google Scholar. At this stage it is not looking reputable. These days, I think one measure of a reputable journal is that you can quickly find a table of contents on the web using Google, but I do understand that some journals have not yet been able to do this.

I have not seen a mention of this before. It does not appear to be on Arbatsky's web page, but I could have missed it. I do not think it was cited on the WP article "Certainty Principle". If it had it might not have been deleted. I understand that you do not know the referees or their comments. Having said all this, it seems to me that if the Certainty Principle was notable and a real advance in physics, it would by now be more widely cited in the scientific literature. --Bduke 23:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

(1) This is Russian government, who has to know about the journal, not Google. The full citation is not a problem. If you think that the journal is not "reputable" - you can think so. (2) In contrast, the question of notability is important. Here I completely agree with you. But you can go to the article Uncertainty principle and read the section "Energy, time and further generalizations". If you have objections against the content, you can start a discussion there. If you agree, then you have to agree that the certainty principle is notable. (The certainty principle for Elephants is also recommended.) (3) I still do not understand why Pythagorean theorem is not "original research". Rcq 14:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

First, stop avoiding the question or I will cease this discussion which I brought here in good faith. Give me details of the journal so I can track it down and give the cite of the article - Volume, Year, Pages. I do not know whether it is reputable because I know nothing about it. Being Russian is not a problem - see Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry. That is a reputable Russian journal. I want to find out whether it is reputable. It is not listed in List of scientific journals in physics for example, although that list is very short compared with the corresponding chemistry list which I have worked on. Second, while I do understand quantum mechanics, I am actually a quantum chemist and I am not familiar with the literature around mathematical quantum theory with particular reference to the uncertainty principle. I therefore am probably not in a position to judge whether the article is wrong, or perhaps trivial, or correct and/or notable. Third, it does not help that I have been unable to load the pdf version in my Adobe reader. Forth, the Pythagorean theorem or as you used earlier, the Uncertainty principle and whether they are original research. WP works as do other encyclopedias by collecting together the world's knowledge. It needs sources. The Pythagorean theorem is of course widely known and is described in many books and articles. In WP we summarise what they say. That is why it is not OR. In the case of the Certainty principle, we had one self-published article. Above, you are asking me to assess whether it is notable. You are asking me to do OR. What we need is a report from someone who has done that OR. If I did it and published it in a review article, we could say "B Duke reviews the recent theorem of Arbatsky, and concludes that it is a valuable advance leading to greater understanding of the Uncertainty principle." With cites that would be sufficient to make the certainty principle not OR. This is why the reference to the Journal article may be important and it was never, to my knowledge, mentioned previously. I thought another poster earlier did a good job in explaining to you why the Uncertainty principle is not OR. The point is that all science was originally original research at one time, but we report what others say about it so we have a consensus of what the world thinks about it. Read WP:OR but note how it links "not OR" to verifibility. We have no source that verifies what Arbatsky wrote.

Sorry. I did not sign this. It was 23:31, 28 May, 2006. (UTC) Bduke

(2) Nobody avoids the question. I just do not have the journal in my arms. But if you cannot find the journal, you certainly will not be able to find the article. (3) As far as I know, in Russia, like in many other free countries, everybody can print a journal and it has the same (legal) status as many others. Nobody has to register them in Wikipedia. (4) If you are not a specialist in the question, why do you think that it is your duty "to defend young minds from the pestilent influence" of the certainty principle? Possibly, when you voted for deletion of the article, you were right, in the sense that some decision had to be expressed, and nobody said (on the discussion page) anything more reasonable. But currently you are free to cease the discussion. I will just invite other people from the Uncertainty principle. If they have something to add, the discussion will be continued. If not, I will start the voting on reinstatement of the article. (Do not want to avoid this process.) (5) What version of Adobe Reader do you use? I have downloaded both articles from the site and checked them in Adobe Reader 6.0.1 03.11.2003. They look perfectly. (6) Currently, the certainty principle is already "the world's knowledge". Even the author cannot change it. If you mean that it is not "widely known", then you can ask your friends (not physicists) about the Uncertainty principle. You will find that, unlike Pythagorean theorem, it is "almost unknown"... It is not an argument. (7) "We have no source that verifies what Arbatsky wrote." Possibly, you are right. To some extent I support your concern. On the other hand, the topic cannot be suppressed for this reason only. There are more than enough competent specialists in the question in WP, who can criticize the article. If somebody does it, then the arguments of "notability" and "verifiability" can be considered as additional. And only if discussion becomes non-constructive. But currently the CP should be considered just as an "obvious fact", like 2*2 = 4, or maybe as something a little more complicated. WP policy allows such facts. (8) If the article is really redundant, the worst thing that can happen is that this article will be "isolated" (with no incoming links). There are a lot of such articles, including those with OR. Nobody will attend it. Then it will be removed by robot. But currently, from purely technical point of view, the situation is worse, because the article about the Uncertainty principle contains importat piece of text that contains important external links. Those links can be easily broken. Rcq 23:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments re your points:-

(3) Then the article is clearly published in a non-established journal. It remains self-published. How do we know it was refereed? How do we know how referees are selected? There are reputable established journals in Russia as I indicated. It is clear that the journal you refer to is not one of them. It is not a valid source on WP. If Arbatsky's work is notable and important it would be accepted by a decent journal. Why has he not submitted it to one, or has he and it was rejected? I would certainly not self-publish something if it was acceptable in the Journal of Chemical Physics or a similar journal.
(4) When did I state "to defend young minds from the pestilent influence"?
(4) Where do you propose to have a vote about reinstalling the article? Deletion Review is the place, but I suspect you will get a massive majority there to not change the original decision to delete the article. As things stand, it is quite clear that the certainty principle does not meet WP's rules and policies and I'm afraid nothing you have said changes that.
(5) Adobe - not sure, but updates do not work on my Windows 2000 on this laptop which is old. I'll look on another machine.
(6) The uncertainty principle is extremely widely known in modern western culture although often misunderstood. The certainty principle is not well known.
(7) WP is not a collection of facts.
(8) It is not clear to me that Uncertainty principle should contain a link to Arbatsky's work, as it is not verified, but I'm not going to remove it.
I advise you to not waste your time trying to recreate this article. Is it very likely to be speedy deleted without going to AfD. You have not stated anything that would alter the debate if it was to go to AfD. At the very least do not try to recreate it until the concept has a valid source, such as an article in a reputable established journal. --Bduke 00:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Answers of Rcq:

Let me start from the last question, the question of time. Probably, you do not understand it well, and you do not understand well what official WP policy is. From technical point of view, working many people on the same article is "editor war". We usually do not call it so, when there is no serious ideological collision. If such a collision happens, which side wins? Technically, those side, whose operations are less time-consuming (including time of administrators). What is WP policy? It is a set of recommendations on how to make the battle more constructive and more productive. Nothing more. I think that in the re-creation/deletion conflict I am stronger than the WP community. I do not want to go this way immediately, because I want to re-instate the article, not to re-create. Frankly speaking, the deleted article was not good at all. But I want to re-instate its history. Nothing more.
Do not call the journal "non-established". It is formally established. You can use subjective word "non-reputable" (which I do not approve, in fact).
We do not actually know how papers are refereed in "reputable" journals. What they write in their official documents is something completely different from what they do in reality.
Quotation marks are not necessarily used for citations. They are used also to show irony. Sorry, if it was confusing here.
Do not talk about "massive majority". Currently, I see only one opponent - you. I invited others to participate in the discussion, but it seems, they do not want. What is more, I know several highly qualified editors of Uncertainty principle who are competent more than enough to understand the certainty principle. I am pretty sure that they have read the papers. And, as you can see, they do not have objections. Rcq 15:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment of Rcq for everybody:

As we can see from the above discussion, the only active opponent, Bduke, have not even seen the original papers about the certainty principle, because he had technical problems with Adobe Reader. But on the discussion page he wrote that he "have read eveything here". We do not know, what he meant, but definitely this could lead to incorrect decision... Rcq 19:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I read enough of the work to see that it was original research and not verified by any other source. I do not think I have ever commented on the truth of the material. It was deleted as OR and there are still no verifiable sources, other than the original author. I see you still have not given anyone a proper citation to the article you claim is in a Russian journal. While you do not, I will only correct misinterpretations of what I have said. --Bduke 23:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. Will (message me!) 21:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, please discregard this. Unluckily, you were the last editor to WP:DRV before it was moved by a vandal. Sorry, Will (message me!) 21:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks on User:linus

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Gwernol 21:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Certainity Principle War

Hi Arbatsky,

You may notice that the blatant attempts to overwhelm Wikipedia's community process is failing to have a noticeable effect. I would urge you to dissuade your supporters from continued creation of blatant sockpuppets that are trying to flood the Deletion Review with spurious votes. This behavior reflects very poorly on you and your theory and will not be successful, so if you have any opportunity to help bring it to an end you will only help your standing and therefore your case. Good luck, Gwernol 22:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Certain Elephant.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Certain Elephant.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Wwagner 19:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Certain Elephant.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Certain Elephant.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. howch e ng {chat} 23:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/c/q/User_talk%7ERcq_f185.html"