User talk:ZergTwo

Contentious topics I will edit in the future

Welcome!

Hello, ZergTwo! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.

Getting Started

Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset
How to: edit a page • upload an image

Getting Help

Policies and Guidelines

Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research
Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines
What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons

Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule
Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy
External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry
Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community

Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program
Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette
No personal attacks • Resolving disputes
Build consensus • Village pump
Discord server • IRC channels • Mailing lists
The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)

Things to do

Task Center • Be bold in editing
Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles
Join a WikiProject • Translating articles
Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism

Miscellaneous

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Translation is not simple wikipedia

You are wrong, what i stated was a redirect to simple Wikipedia page which allows simple and short way to read any wiki, translation feature is used to change the grammar sentence of the language that the article is originally written in. Please understand that what i am doing is giving them an extra opportunity to explore the article that best fit them, this does not violate any Wiki rules and is kind of better for those who are new in such complex Physics subjects such as SR. I will reinstate and i think you will not remove it again. Also you yourself is new in Wiki so please let administrator choose this kind of decisions. IHitmanI (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Interlanguage links, which serve the purpose of your edits. Your edits are also redundant, as the interlanguage links in both articles include the Simple English Wikipedia and is accessible by any reader. If an editor reverts an edit you have made, follow the advice at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. The simplest approach is to seek consensus by starting a discussion on the article's talk page. Do not continue restoring your preferred article version if editors dispute it. Such behavior is considered edit warring and is a blockable offense. Also, administrators are not the only editors who can revert edits that do not follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Their user group does not grant them more experience than non-admins. ZergTwo (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here, I don’t know why you're acting like I committed a blockable offense. I didn’t vandalize anything, I didn’t push a personal agenda, and I didn’t disrupt Wikipedia. What I did was a good-faith edit — I am myself a student and meant to help students like me who struggle with topics like Special Relativity.

You talk about interlanguage links — but let me explain:

SIMPLE WIKIPEDIA IS NOT JUST A LANGUAGE VERSION. It's a completely separate edition of Wikipedia, designed to explain topics in very simple English for students, non-native speakers, and beginners. Most users don’t even know Simple Wiki exists unless someone explicitly shows them. That’s what I was trying to do. And explain me- What about the students who want to learn SR in English not their native language?

And yes — I am slight frustrated. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, but not to using it, its more than years. You could’ve explained things like a decent editor. Instead, you chose to act like some gatekeeping nerd throwing policy quotes as if I’ve harmed the ecosystem. That's not collaborative. That’s off-putting.

You’re not an admin. You’ve been here for just 4 months. Acting like some authority while threatening new editors isn't helpful. Admins may not have more power officially, but they do often have more experience and discretion, which you clearly didn’t use here.

I will raise this on the article’s talk page and other consensus forums. I’m not going to let a well-intended edit get shut down by someone who can’t see the value of accessibility.

Wikipedia should welcome helpful changes — not frustrate the editors trying to make it better. IHitmanI (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Simple English Wikipedia can be accessed using the interlanguage link. All aspects of your edit are present in the interlanguage link. I suggest you read this how-to guide about it (again) to better understand why I reverted your edits. I did not say you would be blocked for that edit. I said not to restore your preferred article version in an editor dispute because that is blockable. Again, administrators are not the only editors who can revert edits that do not comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and warn others. I'm not deliberately asserting more authority than you. I'm explaining why I reverted your edits and how you should deal with it. Since you started a discussion on the article's talk page, I will continue the discussion there. ZergTwo (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bond count and adjacency matrices for unbranched linear and monocyclic alkanes

Hi @ZergTwo, my contribution was minimal in the Alkane article. I placed results that are well known for chemists and mathematicians (graph theory) alike and that can be derived by anyone using standard math. It’s something analogous to derive general formulas for balancing certain kind of chemical reactions. A source is not really needed as anyone can work it out with pencil and paper to generalize these results or derive them. Specifically, in alkanes, the number of C–C bonds is given by n - 1 + r, where n is the number of carbon atoms and r is the number of rings. The number of C–H bonds is then 2n + 2 - 2r, giving a total bond count of 3n + 1 - r. This result is a combination of using the general global formula for alkanes (including cycloalkanes) and the hydrogen deficiency index.

It is also well known that, for a homologous series of unbranched linear alkanes, the topology and/or connectivity of carbon atoms in the molecules (hydrogen-suppressed skeletal formulas) can be described by an adjacency matrix. Numbering the carbon atoms from left to right (or vice versa), the adjacency matrix for linear alkanes can be written as:

$A_{ij}={\begin{cases}0,&i=j\\1,&|i-j|=1\\0,&|i-j|>1\end{cases}}$

It's easy to verify that the determinant of this matrix alternates its values between -1, 0 and 1 for successive members of the series following the pattern of adding a -CH2- (methylene) group. For example, for propane the matrix is [0 1 0; 1 0 1; 0 1 0] and for butane [0 1 0 0; 1 0 1 0; 0 1 0 1; 0 0 1 0], and so on… You can verify the pattern and the formula provided by using this website (https://visualgo.net/en/graphds). The arguments are similar in the case of the monocyclic cycloalkane analogs:

$A_{i,j}={\begin{cases}0,&\ i=j\\1,&\ |i-j|=1{\text{ or }}(i,j)=(1,n){\text{ or }}(i,j)=(n,1)\\0,&\ |i-j|>1{\text{ and }}(i,j)\neq (1,n){\text{ and }}(i,j)\neq (n,1)\end{cases}}$

where 𝑛 is the number of carbon atoms (order of the matrix). The determinant in this case alternates between 2, 0, 2, and -4 for successive members of the series. Thank you for your feedback. Peace & love. Eduartea (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

van der Waals equation

Figure A was originally part of this page's history section; I did not put it there. I moved it to its current position because of its relevance to Eq. 1b. It is essentially that equation written in terms of volume instead of molar volume. Therefore, the figure does not define the equation; it simply (I think interestingly) provides an example. However, if you feel you must eliminate the figure because of some MOS, you must also eliminate its reference in the text, which makes no sense without it. Airman72 (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, any equation in an image should be transmitted as text, regardless of how useful the image is. Also, the way the article is written—referring to images as "figures" and citing them in the text—gives it a textbook-like appearance, which is inappropriate (WP:NOTTEXTBOOK). I will go ahead and tag the article for that issue. ZergTwo (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you stop doing this?

What is your problem in the Electrostatic page. I got there, as a student, found no image regarding the concept which makes it harder to understand things. Added two or three images and you are deleting with Wikipedia:IMG excuses. Stop doing this, if you are a scholar or person related to physics, i think you understand the necessety of images in these things. If not STOP DOING THIS or i have to complain administrator. 2409:40E3:20DE:890D:B47A:9840:434D:BAB4 (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, mate. The problem is not that serious. There is no need to escalate a level 1 problem to a level 10 problem. Your first edit violates MOS:IMG (specifically MOS:PERTINENCE) and MOS:LAYIM, and it's no excuse. They're both guidelines, and editors should attempt to follow them. Your second edit introduced the same problems, but caused the formulae in the article to not display correctly when I checked your edit. In the future, please be careful when placing images so you don't compromise the article's quality. ZergTwo (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. In that case i am going to rewrote whole article with new images, formuales and citations so that everything is in the order. Also even though Electrostatics should be a deep article on its own, the following article does not meet that criteria.

Ps- The seriousness of this discussion is subjective matter and for me it IS mild serious. 2409:40E3:2017:35C9:4083:2A08:87AD:D86C (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. Each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose and serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding.

My images were difinitely not out of context. I get it what you mean. Images are more than the size of article? yeah in this case, thats why i am expanding it. WP:Pertinence, from what I have read about it, my images were not like "a tiny helicopter above Sidney Opera house". My images told exactly what the context was about. 2409:40E3:2017:35C9:4083:2A08:87AD:D86C (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Short descriptions

I've reverted a few of your recent changes to short descriptions. Short description still need to be long enough to be useful. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content in Planck units

You wrote that need to provide a reliable source. The source has already been rejected, and I can't insert it. -- Aab64 (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Explain what you mean by "The source has already been rejected," please. ZergTwo (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planck_units&diff=1289643599&oldid=1289559183 - Aab64 (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So a user reverted your edit because you used an unreliable source? If you can't add material without providing a reliable source, don't add it. ZergTwo (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have different opinions about a reliable source, and new knowledge needs to be added - this is the task of a scientist.- Aab64 (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to have a different opinion but your edits must comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability, which it didn't. If you believe your edit should be restored, discuss it at Talk:Planck units, not here. ZergTwo (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me, I answered; that's the end of it. 212.241.20.73 (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the content you added in Planck units to be restored, then follow the advice I gave in my previous comment. If you don't, then there is nothing to discuss. ZergTwo (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]