User talk:SamuelRiv

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

For posters: please feel free to post anything, but any deletes will be reverted (unless your are amending your own posts). Questions, comments, criticisms concerns about edits and articles, etc. are all welcome. SamuelRiv 23:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, SamuelRiv, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Inversion temperature created by you[edit]

I find that there already exist Temperature inversion which redirect to Inversion (meteorology). I think you should redirect Inversion temperature to Inversion (meteorology) and contribute to Inversion (meteorology). That way existing article will improve. Am I right?

Thanks. TRIRASH 07:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. Inversion temperature is an intrinsic property of gases and has nothing to do with meteorological inversion. The two are completely different topics in very different fields (statistical mechanics vs. meteorology). Thanks for reading the new article, though. SamuelRiv 13:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's OK then. No problem. Just brought to your notice. Thanks. TRIRASH 20:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Unsolved problem in physics revert[edit]

Let's discuss this in the talk page of the article. Dan Gluck 19:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Embedded pushdown automaton[edit]

Thanks a ton for the Embedded pushdown automaton article. I've been wanting to get around to working on that article, so I appreciate your work on that. –jonsafari (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure, and it's great to meet a formal linguist. Please give suggestions, as much of the notation was copied from (Weir 1994), who copied his from (Vijay-Shanker 1988) and was an absolute brainfuck to get through. I modified it a little, but it could probably use more simplification, especially with the doubledagger-epsilon dual notation. Meanwhile, stay in the loop, as I have a few more linguistics and computation pages on my ToDo list and can always use more input. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


Re: National Academic Quiz Tournaments[edit]

Hi Samuel!

Regarding your recent inclusion of a notable individuals section on this article:

While I personally agree with the section, and the people whom you have included, I am worried about three potential problems:

1. I am concerned that many editors will look at these people as "non-notable". They are certainly notable in the quizbowl community, but that is a rather small group within the grand scheme of the world.

2. Some (emphasis, some) of the language can be interpreted as "flowery". For example: Matt Weiner, the sole representative of Virginia Commonwealth University, competed against and soundly defeated. Speaking as someone who down vandalism and weeds out inappropriate content, flowery language like this is usually a red flag that draws my attention immediately. I think it would be better to remove the word "soudly defeated, and put in the actual score.

3. Citations. The defense against deletion will be citations. Even for people who have notability limited to a small community, this can be a defense. For example, consider bringing up Weiner's Young Cooper Award as a way to enhance his notability to an ignorant editor.

I haven't touched the article, but I already saw that some editor tried to make a deletion. I have little doubt that this will continue. I am just throwing down my two cents to assist. Best of luck! LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, please don't add this stuff...we've already had numerous vandals create articles about Matt Weiner, and it's going to continue to be a huge vandal magnet. I'm sure you know how petty and insipid the world of quiz bowl can be, and once you create an article about one random player, someone other drama queen's fragile ego will need to be stroked, based on some accomplishment or other, and where will it stop? I'm sure there must be a quiz bowl wiki somewhere where this would be more appropriate. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was a bit quick in adding the section (and it was 2am!), so I didn't get much on sources or NPOV. For now, I'll keep the section, neutralify Weiner's statement (it was amazing to see it firsthand, though. Maybe I haven't been in the circuit long enough), and delete authorlinks so people don't think individual articles need to be written. Thanks for the kind responses. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Updated DYK query On 26 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oja's rule, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--WjBscribe 11:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK (Biological neuron models)[edit]

Updated DYK query On 29 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Biological neuron models, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Spebi 08:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica[edit]

Original comment posted on User talk:Coredesat

I believe closing debate on Encyclopedia Dramatica in Wikipedia:Deletion review after only 2 hours of existence was premature. Not all questions that I had raised had been answered, and only one other WPian was present. Your reasons cited did not make sense.

  • "Not going to happen" is essentially saying that debate cannot occur, when the article topic in question does not violate any of WP:DEL.
  • You cited the ArbCom rulings (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Proposed decision and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO). These rulings pertained specifically to users involved in the incidents and to external links to ED, but did not mention anything regarding whether or not ED was appropriate to be included as an article in WP. It did cite the VfD debates, but those can be overturned through the channels I was going through here.

Therefore, I am asking that discussion be reopened, and pertaining to the discussion, that the namespace Encyclopedia Dramatica be opened so that an appropriate article can be created, as there is no official ban on that namespace. SamuelRiv (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the idea of an ED article has been discussed to death, and no one has shown any indication that a valid article - one that satisfies WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:WEB (unlikely given that many sources are passing mentions or ED trolling) - could be written on ED. Unless you can, there is little point in bringing up a new DRV. ED is an attack site; unprotecting its article space would simply invite floods of vandalism long before a valid article could be written. --Coredesat 09:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of that is true, but the "attack site" angle is a red herring best ignored. We can't apply that as an encyclopedic standard, but we don't have to, because we've got WP:WEB, etc. Bringing up the idea that it may or may not be an "attack site" by some definition of that term is a distraction from the point, and makes it look as if we're applying some standards other than what we should. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Original comment posted on User talk:Coredesat
I have gathered some information together at User:SamuelRiv/Articles/Encyclopedia Dramatica, but before starting to write the article, I came across the archived version at [1] and its WP mirror at User:Mrmattkatt. Obviously cleanup is necessary, and some new information and links are now available on my page, but what is wrong content-wise with this article? SamuelRiv (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to copy the question, I guess I'll copy the answer.
That's easy. There is no "non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources." Nobody has written anything about ED; they've only been mentioned in a couple of pieces about other topics. Do they meet WP:WEB? That's the only question to ask. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Original comment posted on User talk:Coredesat
I'm going to ask that all discussion be moved to my talk page, as it looks like I'm going to be the principal player here. I am copying all my comments to said page, but I think this would be much more appropriate on the deletion appeals page, and so again I am asking that discussion be re-opened there. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Based on what's on that page, I'm not going to reopen the DRV. Nothing there satisfies any of the relevant policies or guidelines. --Coredesat 21:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Please elaborate on this. Relevant policies and guidelines seem to me to be satisfied. WP:NOTE is a joke here - the amount of emotion that fires up on the mention of ED in WP is notability enough (but then of course we have verifiable statistics in google search records, unique hits per month, and page rankings in internet poll sites). WP:V then only requires notability of the article and the sources, but the sources themselves do not have to make the article notable, hence the justification for only having side-reference sources (the Digg article refers to ED specifically in terms of Google censorship, etc). I believe these two are satisfied independently of WP:WEB, which is a subsection guideline of WP:NOTE, but the relationship to Google and Wikipedia seem to satisfy criteria 1 and 2 of WP:WEB. Finally, since this debate is between a lowly editor and a powerful admin, is my next step if we deadlock here a RfC, or what? SamuelRiv (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but "the amount of emotion that first up on the mention of ED in WP is notability enough," is nonsense. We're not that masturbatory, to think that our personal reactions to ridicule is sufficient to confer notability on that ridicule. The fact is that there has been no non-trivial coverage of ED in independent sources. Until that standard can be met, there can be no article. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
A RFC over this issue would be equally useless, as well. No one has done anything that could be considered out of line, and this dispute is not in RFC's scope. DRV has repeatedly ended with a request to show how an article on ED could possibly meet existing policies and guidelines; that request has not been met, and until it is met (with consensus that it has been met), DRVs on ED will continue to be speedily closed. --Coredesat 03:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • That MSNBC clip you linked on User:SamuelRiv/Articles/Encyclopedia Dramatica is a good one, actually - a two minute piece on MSNBC about an ED prank. Nice work. But seriously, stop obsessing over whether or not the Deletion Review discussion was speedily closed. It was speedily closed because you brought nothing that the last 10 Deletion Reviews didn't. The situation is simply: it will be considered again if and only if "a workable, brilliantly sourced draft using only reliable sources that are independent is created and presented in userspace". If you really want the article, spend your time working on that, not trying to persuade people to unprotect the article in main space before you write something. That's your next step: writing the article, not opening an RfC. --Stormie (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Hear, hear. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The draft that I am endorsing is the state of the article before deletion (on User:Mrmattkatt) as it satisfies NPOV, etc, and reads well. The Digg and MSNBC links should be added to the references section. I am not copying it into my page as it is not my work, and I won't claim it as such. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
More sources for you guys from CNN Headline News and The Observer Magazine (The Guardian's news mag) - see User:SamuelRiv/Articles/Encyclopedia Dramatica SamuelRiv (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how any of the sources you're referencing on your User space page are reliable. 1- New York Times, one sentence mentioned in passing. 2-Youtube is not a reliable source. 3- Spanish Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 4-A count of hits tells us nothing relevant. How do you write an article on that? 5-A forum post is not a reliable source. 5-petitinonloine tells us nothing that can be used to write an article on. Corvus cornixtalk 21:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I specifically said evidence for WP:NOTE, not reliable sources on which to base an article. You do not mention anything about CNNHLN or MSNBC (linked via YouTube, in which case it is reliable). SamuelRiv (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
There's no difference between the two. The only point of WP:NOTE is making sure that we have sufficient sources on which to base an article. It remains true that there are no non-trivial sources about ED. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
No, WP:V makes sure you have sufficient sources on which to base an article. WP:NOTE is guidelines on whether or not an article should be included, and this can come from multiple non-direct sources (i.e. WP:Google_test). The main argument at this point that I would make for WP:NOTE is, combined with page ranks, increasing numbers of searches on google for ED, its use on other WPs, and references by reliable sources, is that it was itself used as a reference by a reliable source. SamuelRiv (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Um... don't tell me what WP:NOTE means. I was there when it was written, and I helped write it. We decided that, in order for a subject to be notable enough for an article, it has to be the subject of multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. ED isn't. The Google test is shit. Page ranks are shit. Other WPs are shit. Non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources is what we're looking for, and it's what we haven't got with ED. I like ED, but we don't make exceptions for things we like, anymore than we make exceptions for things we don't like. Wait for the sources, ok? -GTBacchus(talk) 10:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The search engine test is neither a policy nor a guideline, and it (or page ranks, for that matter) is not a substitute for reliable sources. Other Wikipedias have different inclusion criteria and those criteria do not apply here (also, who is to say the articles won't be deleted from there?). At any rate, your reply does not address the lack of non-trivial sources about ED itself. --Coredesat 08:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's up for review again at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_6.--91.121.88.13 (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:SamuelRiv/Articles/Encyclopedia Dramatica[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on User:SamuelRiv/Articles/Encyclopedia Dramatica, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Enough with the drama, already. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mrmattkatt.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:User:SamuelRiv/Articles/Encyclopedia Dramatica|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Calton | Talk 14:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that "stop the drama" is not an argument and does not cite WP policy. However, "ArbCom does NOT decide policy" IS policy.
Your Wikilawyering is duly noted. Note also that someone else actually pulled the trigger.
In short, leave this alone, or at least read the page you are tagging before you tag it.
I did read it, which is why I, you know, tagged it for speedy deletion. Reality check: ED? It's not getting an article on Wikipedia, period/full stop, no matter what legalisms you try to bring to bear. It be dead, and you can't breathe any life into its corpse. --Calton | Talk 18:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my question[edit]

Here is [my comment] to your answer. I was wondering why people weren't responding! Again, thank you.Sam Science (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.jpg[edit]

In my opinion the graph shows that the time to next events are getting smaller. I did try to plot a graph with a different event distribution and the result was not the same. If the graph is increasing it shows that the times to next events are getting bigger, and if the graph is decreasing it shows that the times to next events are getting smaller. So in my opinion the times of the events do matter on this graph. I disagree with your conclusion on the image talk pages. Cunya (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous graph debate[edit]

I just wanted to send you a note of encouragement on the "graph" debate. I am no physicist, but I've spent 9 years in university studying math, physiology, toxicology, computers and languages, and upon seeing that graph I nearly cried with laughter. I was reading that page in order to better understand the point of view of a futurist in my atheist group, with whom I am constantly disagreeing on the very nature of humans on this planet, and upon seeing that graph, I immediately confirmed I was simply dealing with a nutcase desguised as a thinking person. I have fought a few battles over "wrong" on wikipedia and found them exhausting, even though I succeeded in bringing logic and rules to the forefront, and presented strong enough cases to sway mediators and readers at large against self appointed "expert" page guardians. All I can suggest to you is it's pointless to wage edit wars beyond the first three edits. Call for a mediator quickly, call in other users which can support the correct facts, and make sure you present your case well, objectively, with facts and statistics, moderators like statistics as Wikipedia uses the principal of "least surprise" when it comes to initially presentated information, "fluffy info" can always follow later in the article. Remember, Wikipedia is more about "least surprise" than "truth" and that makes the burden of proof much easier, for all scientists will side with you. Best wishes--Tallard (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Responding to this and the post above, I got sick shortly after this whole debacle and did not continue the debate. However, the mathematical argument I made was in fact incorrect, based on an improper interpretation of the graph axes descriptions. That said, the other arguments people have made in support are quite interesting and valid, and while I will not be apologetic about my earlier argument, I do still hold room that there is a bias inherent in the choice of axes.
An interesting lesson learned from this: before posting originally, I showed my analysis to some friends asking if my interpretation was correct, and before anybody looked at it carefully, the debate immediately turned to whether Wikipedia was a proper forum for this and whether an argument that somebody is factually wrong even matters in a project based on "notability". Obviously such debate still goes on, and now that I'm aware of how quickly the argument drifts both IRL and on WP from the original claim, I'll hopefully be more effectual in the future.
That said, Kurzweil is still an idiot and seems to completely hijack an approach to futurism in social science that may be the most objectively-verifiable in history, and that makes me sad. SamuelRiv (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron[edit]

Barnstar search rescue.png Hello, SamuelRiv. Based on the templates on your talk page, please consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles from deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. You can join >> here <<.

Ikip (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: removing a Kardashev scale image[edit]

I did not improve the resolution on the image, but rather resaved it with a higher compression ratio. This is not really important to the issue at hand, however, for which I have no opinion. I do not believe that I have uploaded that image anywhere other than here. Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: help! 17:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Crocodile faeces question on reference desk[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Possible_Problem_with_answer Posted the problem on the talk page, and removed some responses that should be on the talk page as well. 77.86.47.199 (talk) 09:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, SamuelRiv. You have new messages at WT:RD.
Message added 17:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTagpresiding officer─╢ 17:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi - sort of apology[edit]

Hello. Just to inform you - I got sort of bitey (see WP:BITE) in a thread on the reference desk talk page. ok. So when you read it please don't take too much offence...83.100.183.63 (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Biting on the RD[edit]

Hi, looking back maybe I did nip him a little. But he does have editing history - albeit pretty small. I take your point with good grace. Best to you. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

2+2=5[edit]

See User_talk:Bo_Jacoby#2.2B2.3D5_becomes_a_really_neat_bit_of_mathematics

Robert O. Becker[edit]

When a man has 91 publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals, 33 as first author (and several in Science and Nature), it should be clear he is a real and notable scientist. This is not self-promotion, nor pseudoscience. If he had cared about self-promotion, he would have thrown out biographical data, which would have appeared as solid facts for googlers. Many silly ideas refer to Einstein, so will you try to demolish him, too? (The after-1920 Einstein is certainly not above Becker, but perhaps you would help Einstein demolish quantum theory?)

You should read Becker's book The Body Electric, and you would see the importance of the issues he discusses, both regeneration and electropollution. You would also see the elegance in how his healing procedures start at exactly the point where the body's self-healing fails. (Rather than following the common practice: Manipulate the body with a causality-based procedure which completely disregards the body's own self-healing capabilities.) The work is based on conventional physics, and the only fringe element in his works is that such simple physical procedures are unsuitable for patenting by the pharma industry.

Another matter: I see above that you have written about Inversion temperature. Although this differs from Inversion (meteorology), you might have thoughts on the issue I have tried to raise in Talk:Inversion_(meteorology). Nobody answered this, but from the instructions I received from a geophysics professor (to use the potential temperature) when I did some programming for temperature grid analysis in the seventies, I am quite certain the inversion temperature definition in Wikipedia (as in Encyclopaedia Britannica!) is wrong. OlavN (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The inversion temperature article I wrote is about a property in statistical mechanics that makes liquefaction of gases, such as nitrogen, extremely easy and cheap. The inversion temperature in meteorology to which you link refers to something else with the same name. There's no right or wrong when they refer to two entirely different things.
Becker has patents. He has no clinical trials of his electromedicine that prove what he claims, and to claim medical efficacy without clinical trials is disingenuous and unethical. 91 publications is a fairly small amount for a lifetime researcher (though in fairness he was a surgeon at the time). His peer-reviewed stuff had nothing to do with his crazy medical claims, but had to do with, for example, piezoelectric and other properties in biological materials (which are objectively measureable in vitro).
The "pharma industry" has failed to prevent any number of life-saving medicines and surgical techniques from common practice - they haven't even tried. What does prevent such things from entering practice, however, is a lack of conclusive clinical trials and/or AMA or FDA approval. I will read some relevant papers by Becker - a book on a scientific subject often becomes a rant. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Wormholes on Science Desk[edit]

Hi SamuelRiv. You are right, my response was unnecessarily rude/arrogant. I have apologized to the OP and responded on my own talk page. Thanks for keeping me in check, I will try to stay on-topic and more polite/encouraging in the future. Nimur (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Certain voices cause dreamy sensation[edit]

Based on discussion at ref desk talk, I am removing that question from the science page. Just letting you know, as you were a responder. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Small tags on Science Desk[edit]

Hi SamuelRiv, I reverted your addition of small-tags around my response (and few other responses) on the reference desk. I believe our responses were in direct response to the original question. I especially don't believe my response was "off-topic" in any way: I specifically addressed and answered the question. If you disagree, please feel free to respond on the desk, but I don't think my comments need "small" tags. Nimur (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, SamuelRiv. You have new messages at Pontificalibus's talk page.
Message added 21:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Elliptic integral[edit]

Hello! On 16 January 2011 you changed

Note that sometimes the elliptic integral of the third kind is defined with an inverse sign in the "characteristic"  n, i.e.

to

Note that sometimes the elliptic integral of the third kind is defined with an inverse sign in the characteristic {8 \sqrt \pi}n}},

.

in the Elliptic integral article. The alteration seems to be wrong or incomplete. Could you verify and correct it, please? Ufim (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Spring scale[edit]

Well, couldn't we just nick the picture they have in the German and Dutch WPs? de:Federwaage resp. pic link. This would do the trick methinks. Regards. -andy 77.190.8.126 (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Great idea! Thanks! Done! SamuelRiv (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

T.M.I.[edit]

Hi. Please do not add trivia to episodes, as you did with this edit. It does not matter if it's part of the plot, or quoted by it. The only plot information that belongs in an article is that which is essential for summarizing that plot for the reader, or that which is part of critical or evaluative claims about the episode that are found in secondary sources, as in the Reception sections. Everything else--continuity notes, individual jokes and gags, minutiae, and that formula, do not fall into either one of these things, and therefore, doe not belong in the article. Please see WP:TRIVIA for more. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 11:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please go to the article talk page. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

MLP[edit]

I do not agree with you. Please tell me where and how can I mention the new NN learning algorithm (BPM), which is much better than backpropagation that you are not going to delete it. --Radovednik (talk) 12:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the units at GEM[edit]

I put the SI units (added later: merely the units in the explanation of the variables) in for the GEM equations at Gravitoelectromagnetism. I can not imagine how I overlooked the square on the seconds in the gravitoelectric field. Thanks for fixing it. JRSpriggs (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Responding to your question at User talk:JRSpriggs#Re: Thanks for fixing the units at GEM:
My involvement with this article is relatively recent. I did make some changes which I felt were necessary to keep the article from being clearly wrong and to elaborate where there is clearly only one possible choice (as with the units), but I cannot affirm the correctness of what is there. I have serious doubts about whether GEM is a reasonable approximation to GTR.
I try to stick to SI units, partly because I think that the multiplicity of systems of units is one of the things which makes it hard to understand electromagnetism. If you want to add the GEM and Maxwell's equations in Gaussian units in another section, I will not oppose you. But please do not remove the SI version of the equations. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nathan Bedford Forrest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Copeland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Quran[edit]

Hello. This edit of yours is problematic [2]. First, removing sourced content should generally be discussed on the talk page of the article. Second, deleting a section with the argument that you do it because the authors are Jewish (or any other religion or nationality) is extremely inapppropriate.Jeppiz (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see the article talk page, and I assure you that you misinterpret my objections. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello again, and thank you for the good post you wrote on the talk page of the article. I apologize if I misinterpreted your edit, but I hope you can see how someone could do it. That being the case, your later comment explain your reasoning very well and show that I was mistaken, for which I am truly sorry.Jeppiz (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Artificial neural networks and refspam[edit]

Hi SamuelRiv,

I consider this addition Wikipedia:REFSPAM for a number of reasons. Every single edit by the user who added it (Cjlim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)) is to add material sourced to a book by the same publisher, and they have ignored repeated warnings and declined to discuss their edits on talk pages. The phrasing of the material appears promotional -- "In Daniel Graupe's book on The Principles of Artificial Neural Network (3rd Edition - 978-981-4522-73-1)" It's confusingly phrased "thus being an answer to the shortcoming of single-layer neural networks, such as the Perceptron (when considering it as a single-layer neural network)." and doesn't seem to integrate well into the main text. If you think the material can be salvaged please do so, but my inclination is always to revert promotional edits, even if they're borderline acceptable. Cheers, a13ean (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

My bad for not checking the respective User pages first. Thanks for the courteous reply. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
No problem, I should have explained my reversion better to start. The user ended up getting blocked a day or two ago. Cheers, a13ean (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alkarama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The National (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

AfC acceptance[edit]

I'm curious to know why you accepted Republicanism in Spain from AfC? I had reservations about it and left concerns on the author's talk page. Could you explain your rationale? Chris Troutman (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Your objections were minor enough not to block its movement to the namespace. The article is still at an early development stage. Because the article covers a lot of well-established history, much of it will not be directly cited. Political bias is minor, deals largely with old (less heated) history, and gets better handled in the namespace than on AfC. The lack of academic citations is important, but the article for the most part sticks to facts and such things are looked over better in namespace. Finally, and most importantly, there are a significant number of editors of Spanish history who will be all over the article over the next few weeks. And keep in mind, it's articles for creation -- the bar is pretty low. SamuelRiv (talk) 06:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for the reply. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)