User talk:Bob K31416

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Bob K31416, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! JFW | T@lk 22:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I see you have an interest in AF! The article is in reasonable shape but better sources are always welcome. You are free to join the medical wikiProject. JFW | T@lk 11:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi JFW.

Thanks for your welcome and useful comments. I'm new here and I'll be slowly getting up to speed in the Wikiculture. I'm not even sure if this is the proper way to respond to your message! Bob K31416 (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You've done just fine. I haven't worked on the AF article for some time, but it still needs some work. It is an enormous and continuously expanding topic, so we need to be selective in the level of detail. If things become unmanageable there is always the possibility to create subarticles (e.g. treatment of atrial fibrillation), but I'd prefer to avoid that at this stage.

I am convinced that it won't take much extra work to push the AF article to good article quality. It would be quite helpful if you reviewed the article closely, and listed on Talk:Atrial fibrillation what the current problems are. This way, other contributors may be able to assist in the process of getting this article up to sterling quality.

Some background reading: WP:MEDMOS is the "manual of style" for articles on medical conditions. WP:MEDRS is the same for sources. JFW | T@lk 08:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

AF

There was no misunderstanding - I support your edit but I felt that the prognostic information should remain in the prognosis/treatment sections. JFW | T@lk 09:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I support your edit too. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules and procedures

{{help me}} A sudden, significant, undiscussed action was taken today by another editor on an article that I have been editing. The article Potability of backcountry water was combined with another article Wilderness diarrhea under the name Wilderness diarrhea. The part that was the original article was put in a section named Controversy.

I disagree with this undiscussed action but am unable to undo it because of subsequent edits. What is the procedure for returning the Potability article back to its original state?

(Sorry TenPoundHammer but you lost your credibility with your first two unhelpful responses to my request for help. Why waste your time here? Go "help" someone else.)

Bob K31416 (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry about that. Someone else did offer you help right here and you wiped it out. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, Bob K31416, please read Wikipedia:Civility. Your comment directed to TenPoundHammer was rude, and there is no excuse for it. We are all volunteers on this project, and give the best answers we can to questions. Some of the time we get it right; most of the time we don't give the answer a user is looking for. Please bear that in mind, and in the future, do not direct impolite words to any editors. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Peter Symonds, Thanks for the correction. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer, Sorry about that. Thank you for your suggestions.

Genisock2, Thank you for your suggestion. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hall effect

Sorry for answering so late, but I was far from the Internet for about ten days. OK, I'll try to write about the topic, but I'll show it to you first, since my English is far from perfect... --Ernobius (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wilderness Diarrhea

Bob:

Please see Wilderness Diarrhea talk pageCalamitybrook (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC

Bob: I'm glad you're willing to look at my proposal. When I say there is "no final version" I mean merely that Wikipedia articles are available for editing by anyone at any time, as you know.

I hope it's evident from the proposed changes that what I'm aiming for is to keep all of the current article's content and ideas and most of its present structure, thereby respecting and retaining work of various previous editors.

As you can see, the proposal is considerably shorter than the current version. This is achieved by mostly by de-emphasizing "controversy" and doing away with that section, while dealing with the ideas there in a few sentences.

I've also attempted to shorten many sentences without changing their meaning. Some other points are mentioned at the top of my page, right before the proposal's lead graf.

What do you think? Calamitybrook (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The above was moved, at my suggestion, by Calamitybrook to Talk:Wilderness diarrhea, section "Is this article turning into the style of a newspaper?" subsection "Please see proposal" and the discussion continued there. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

Bob- If you have the time, you might want to look into the Wikipedia item on verifiabiilty. Here's link: [[1]]

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I suspect you have a particular point you would like to make or discuss? --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

WD

Calamitybrook WP:CANVASSed an enormous number of potentially interested (but not, alas, very informed) people to oppose the merge. The reasons for opposing the merge, which can be found at Talk:Traveler's diarrhea are:

• the belief that diarrhea caused by fecal coliform bacteria, various viruses, and giardia acquired while hiking in your own country is materially different from diarrhea caused by the exactly same organisms through exactly the same routes of transmission if acquired while hiking or otherwise traveling in another country, and
• the assertion that the WD article, much of which is either cut-and-paste out of TD or suffers from needless bloat, is clearly so long that it needs its own space.

I strongly suspect that we're mostly dealing with Americans (including myself) in this discussion, because it would never occur to, say, a German that getting diarrhea while hiking on the Austrian side of the Alps was materially different from getting diarrhea while hiking on the German side of the same mountain.

The "discussion" at TD is neither enlightening nor pleasant. Yesterday, we had an editor that insisted that Zell's 1992 paper was not the same as Zell's 1992 paper. I expect no useful progress to be made on that article this month.

It seems useful to refine WD, both for its own sake and also with an eye to a possible future merge. The details of the scientific studies are not appropriate: This is an encyclopedia, not a research thesis. I suspect that much of it could be (and probably should be) reduced to very short summaries, perhaps as brief as "According to surveys of hikers, the incidence of diarrhea varies from 3% to 60%.^[ref][ref]" or "Most cases of diarrhea among hikers are due to fecal-oral transmission; giardia is relatively rare.^[ref]" or whatever seems reasonable. Epidemiology in a medicine-related article is usually one or two paragraphs, not four or five subsections.

I'd like to keep interesting information (e.g., about prevention), but pare back the "scientific abstracts" aspect (particularly under "Causes"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent note. I like it. I also meant to add earlier that we really need all of the epidemiology information to get centralized into a single section. Are you familiar with the suggested order at WP:MEDMOS#Sections? It's a good template, I think. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The 'pmid' ref names are autogenerated at Dave's template filler. If you want to change them to something more human-readable, then I have no objections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist

Has WAD fallen off your watchlist primarily when you're the last person to edit it? If so, then it's probably temporary. Most people's preferences are set so that the watchlist doesn't show any article if you were the last person to edit it. Otherwise, you might check each time you make an edit to make sure that "Watch this page" is still ticked (underneath the edit summary field). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

WAD

Here is an interesting article that is only remotely related to WAD article, and which I won't propose using: [[2]]. It cites Crouse-J. An interesting side-light: it says hikers who did NOT filter water were slightly less likely to become ill than those who did, although it concerns a highly peculiar situation.

Here is another article that cites the C-J paper among other sources. [[3]].

I gather its ultra-terse treatment of the subject could be favored for the WAD article:

"Limited information is available concerning the risk factors for illness in the backcountry and about the health outcomes of visitors who use parks in backcountry areas. Several studies indicate that as many as 3.8%--56% of long-distance hikers and backpackers experience gastrointestinal illness during their time in the backcountry (56--61). Given the increasing popularity of backcountry use, this burden of illness could have significant medical and economic implications. Although the advice to universally filter and disinfect backcountry drinking water to prevent disease has been debated (62), the health consequences of ignoring that standard water treatment advice have been documented in WBDOSS, although they have not been well-defined through research studies."

This could serve for the entire section of WAD epidemiology, although certainly not my preference, and one notes the above article's focus is not WAD.

Obviously, both these items qualify as yet more examples of credible literature (the endless list) that discuss WAD without reference to TD. Calamitybrook (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading the AT Norovirus article showing how they try to find the cause of an outbreak. An engaging medical mystery. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

CHADS

You bother to mention the age range of the study, but then delete entirely from article information on the type and size of the study used to generate the CHADS score. Are you implying that it is not relevant whether it was an observational study, a trial, a cohort study, and that it is also irrelevant whether it was a study from 10 patients vs 100 vs 1000 vs 10000? CHADS2 is a prediction rule derived under umbrella of evidence-based medicine. Deleting this information detracts from the article, and to repeatedly delete it and even fail to accommodate it elsewhere is against spirit of Wikipedia and interests of a good article. Please be accurate and be respectful. Laportechicago (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I don't feel that the situation is as confrontational as the tone of your message suggests. I think that we can work this out and I'm definitely interested in your ideas on the subject.

There seems to be 3 items of info for this discussion:

1) the ages of the subjects in the study (65-95) - I felt that this info was significant because it raises the question of how applicable the results of the study are to people under the age of 65.

2) the number of participants in the study (1733) - This seems like a reasonable number of subjects and would not affect the credibility of the study. If it was a small number like the 10 or 100 numbers that you mentioned, and this was the only study available for the info, then the reader should be warned of the small size of the study if it was decided that it should be included in an article. But 1733 subjects isn't such a case.

3) the participants were on Medicare - although you didn't mention this in your above message as one of the deleted items, I would be interested in your ideas about how this info is useful for the article.

I certainly welcome your discussion! --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding: 1: I agree; this regards the design of the study and potential application of the prediction rule 2: Let the reader decide for himself or herself; the statistical strength suggested by the narrow confidence intervals around the stroke risks notwithstanding, the size of the study is a critical factor; one clinician should not make assumptions about what other clinicians and other readers consider to be significant sample sizes; 3: Fact that study was conducted from Medicare claims shows (1) how the study was conducted (i.e. it was retrospective cohort study from Medicare records, not prospective cohort study), and (2) potential design limitations since it was limited to Medicare patients (i.e. selection bias).

To my surprise, I see that you re-deleted the information,not even waiting for my response. That information was in the article for several months before you deleted it (3 times now). You do not dispute the accuracy of the information. And yet you delete the information, making the grand presumption that you know the design information that is relevant and not-relevant for all readers.

First, I think you are wrong for technical reasons. Second, it is wrong for you to delete correct information several times from an article without even attempting to put it elsewhere. The first point can be the subject of informative discussion, but the second point is egregious and crosses lines.

If my response above does not satisfy you, and you cannot find it within yourself to tolerate or accept the inclusion of the study design information, then I suggest that we revert each others changes 3 times over next 24 hours so that we can trigger arbitration, which I think would be the appropriate at this time. I question your technical judgment, and I certainly question your presumptuous, non-constructive behavior. Please make articles more informative, not less informative, and please be respectful. Laportechicago (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.

1. I'm glad we are in agreement re ages of subjects in the study.
2. Re "Let the reader decide for himself or herself" - This argument can be used for including any information in any article no matter how little usefulness it has, so it isn't a helpful argument.
3. Re "the statistical strength suggested by the narrow confidence intervals around the stroke risks" - Thanks for pointing that out.
4. Re "Fact that study was conducted from Medicare claims shows (1) how the study was conducted (i.e. it was retrospective cohort study from Medicare records, not prospective cohort study), and (2) potential design limitations since it was limited to Medicare patients (i.e. selection bias)."

- Re 1st point, Could you elaborate on your ideas regarding the significance of the distinction between retrospective and prospective for the article? If the distinction is significant for the article, we could specifically identify it instead of referring to Medicare, since the inference from mentioning Medicare may not be obvious.

- Re 2nd point, what do you see as the potential design limitations or bias problems re use of Medicare patients?

5. Re "To my surprise, I see that you re-deleted the information, not even waiting for my response." - That didn't happen. I haven't done any editing on the article since our discussion began.

6. Re "First, I think you are wrong for technical reasons." - Please explain this. What items and technical reasons are you referring to?

7. Re "the size of the study is a critical factor; one clinician should not make assumptions about what other clinicians and other readers consider to be significant sample sizes;" - As I mentioned before, I feel that the size of the study is only of significance if it is small enough to bring into question the credibility of the study. I guess we can't can't come to an agreement on this particular point and maybe we might get other knowledgeable editors' opinions on this particular point with a Request for Comment from the section that includes medical projects.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Right.

2. It's not my point that the reader should decide relevance of sample size. My point is that the reader should see the sample size SOMEWHERE in the article and then decide whether it satisfies himself/herself. Clinicians (correctly) judge studies partly on their size and certainly on their design. You argued that we should automatically assume that the study had significant sample size and had a suitable design, but that is not going to satisfy a good number of clinicians and readers. Indeed, you will note that every clinical trial paper abstract includes the size of the trial or study; and it's not an accident. The CONSORT guidelines are even more explicit and demanding about sample size data being clearly reported.

3. Retrospective study from Medicare claims means that they are data-mining from billing records, so there are inevitible infirmities in the data (For example, if something happened to patient X but it wasn't billed to Medicare for whatever reason, patient's outcome might have been missed). There's possibilities that such infirmities might be biased towards one outcome. If it was a prospective study, then patient would have been identified and registered beforehand, almost certainly through their physician, allowing much tighter and stricter follow-up on their outcomes and much less guessing and missing data about what happened to the patient.

4. The use of Medicare patients was very likely chosen because the billing records/claims are far more accessible to researchers then those from private insurers, and also because medicare is far more common amongst the retired (the patients most at risk from AFIB and stroke risk). In fact, I suspect that's why the selection criteria started at age 65, and did not include any patients in their 50s. Without delving into stereotypes, the Medicare population compared to private insurance population of the same age tends to be more indigent and have more co-morbidities, less monitoring and less intensive treatment for the strokes, and would therefore have worse outcomes than if the entire US population in that age group was included. This potentially biases the risk estimates for stroke. Is it hugely significant? No. Is it irrelevant? No. It needs to be mentioned in article and simply deleting this fact is not the thing to do. For that matter, the study should at least state that the patients were at American hospitals.

4.a: See above. 4.b: My mistake and I apologize. 4.c: I believe it is technically wrong to say that study design and study size information is not relevant to clinical judgement and use of the CHADS2 score. I don't think it is a matter of opinion; I think it is actually wrong. I would be hard-pressed to find a clinician who would consider that information irrelevant if they were presented with a new clinical prediction rule. Just reciting confidence intervals is not going to impress any clinician with half a brain; they will want to know: (1) when was it conducted, (2) where was it conducted/with what patients, (3) what was the design and sample size and primary outcomes. 4.d: Right. My suggestion is that there should be a section on the study design, if it is really bothersome to include study design info in the introductory page. But deleting it is not responsible thing to do.

Please invite an epidemiologist or a clinician to arbitrate if you would like.

Laportechicago (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

For some guidance on this issue I looked at the "ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and in their discussion of CHADS₂ they mentioned 1733 Medicare participants so I won't object to the inclusion of those details in the article. Furthermore, I'll be carefully looking at your input above and the aforementioned Guidelines for ideas re development of the article.

Thanks for the discussion! --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. What level of detail to put into a particular Wikipedia article can be a controversial issue, as we have just experienced, and depends on the subject field of the article. Please note that it probably isn't a catastrophe which way is decided and that as long as there are easily accessible references, e.g. online as in the link to the relevant reference cited in this article, more details are always available to the interested reader. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

1. I didn't know about its mention in the joint guidelines on AFIB but I am not surprised that its mention included a few words on its design and size.

2. The medicine-related articles on Wikipedia are accessed by users with a wide range of sophistication in medicine, broadly including patients at one end, and clinicians at the other end. My experience is that good Wikipedia articles satisfy both groups by including simple concise introduction, some explanation sections for the 1st group, and then some more technical sections farther down for the 2nd group. A typical exam is the wikipedia article for drugs. Take tamoxifen, for example. There is some simple information combined with very technical information like study results (the main subject of our discussion). Taking away from technical info is "robbing peter to pay paul"--- one group of users is robbed at the expense of another, which is unnecessary. The question of level-of-detail is best addressed by re-arranging and re-organizing the article (ex. new sections, technical sections, etc), rather than deleting, which is a negative/devolutionary/detraction approach. Deleting is for (1) incorrect info, (2) biased info, (3) frivolous info.

3. I have no objections and really no authority to say where the study design information should be. I think a new section would be appropriate. I also think your idea of moving it to stroke risk section makes sense, too. But I think a Study Design section with 2-3 sentences on how, when, where study was conducted would be satisfactory.

4. I refer you to CONSORT guidelines to demonstrate the current practice in reporting randomized trials in medical journals. (would not apply to cohort studies per se but the point is the same).

Laportechicago (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Here's a discussion of your points using your numbering system.

1. You can find the afib guidelines here and the CHADS₂ material that we were discussing is on p e287. Once you bring up the article you can find it easily by doing a search for 1733.

2. Re "My experience is that good Wikipedia articles satisfy both groups by including simple concise introduction, some explanation sections for the 1st group, and then some more technical sections farther down for the 2nd group." - If I recall correctly, that's what Wikipedia guidelines suggest.

3. Re "I have no objections and really no authority to say where the study design information should be." - You have as much authority as any other Wikipedia editor.

Re "I also think your idea of moving it to stroke risk section makes sense, too." - I'll make that change for now and it can always be changed again if needed to work with your ideas.

4. Like you seem to be saying, the CONSORT guidelines aren't exactly appropriate for the Wikipedia but if you can extract some ideas from them, that sounds like something to discuss.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Outside comment

I'd like to interrupt this conversation with a potentially important reminder: Wikipedia is not written for clinicians. Clinicians should not be either so careless or so lazy as make decisions based on an encyclopedic summary of anything; clinicians should read the entire source themselves. The Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer does not only apply to patients.

I'd like to invite both of you to read WP:MEDMOS#Audience before you get much further along in this conversation, and, in the broader picture, to consider joining WikiProject Medicine, where there are a lot of experienced editors that can help you navigate the complexities of writing an encyclopedia for the general reader instead of for fellow professionals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I'll take a look at what you suggested. Also, I thought I saw somewhere in Wikipedia info that it was suggested to start an article relatively simple and then progress to relatively more complex aspects of a subject. This was info related to articles in general. Could you help out and recall where this info might be? --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you looking for Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! That's the one. Could you comment on this excerpt from it, "Put the most accessible parts of the article up front. It's perfectly fine for later sections to be highly technical, if necessary. " --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm fond of that section, which I usually interpret as making at least the first sentence of any major section something that the average teenager could understand, instead of the introduction being understandable and the rest jargon-filled. (To clarify: I do want the introduction to be understandable, but not just the introduction, and if the introduction needs to use technical terms to avoid long-winded explanations, then I'm willing to be somewhat flexible.

Of course, if you're in the middle of a major overhaul of an article, then it's difficult to do this with every edit. I often see editors write the article first, and then go back and edit it specifically to add simpler sentences (see here for one example). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, but my main interest is what you think about the second sentence of the excerpt. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I interpret necessary as meaning essentially unavoidable. There are topics that can't be adequately explained without using technical terms. I do not interpret it as an excuse to violate WP:NOT PAPER by writing a jargon-filled article (or half an article) that is intelligible only to fellow experts just because I can, or to bury the reader in small details just because I happen to find them interesting (and I usually do find them interesting -- just not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and I can get my own website for that). Just my two cents; other people may have other views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Re " I do not interpret it as an excuse to violate WP:NOT PAPER by writing a jargon-filled article (or half an article) that is intelligible only to fellow experts just because I can, or to bury the reader in small details just because I happen to find them interesting (and I usually do find them interesting" - I agree!

And thanks for another useful link to look at (WP:What Wikipedia is not). At that link there is the guidance again, "Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic."

It seems that we shouldn't ignore either the first part of this sentence nor the last part which suggests that more detailed explanations of the topic are entirely proper when they follow information that is accessible to a wider range of readers.

For highly technical subjects, a Wikipedia article might eventually have clearer highly technical explanations than the books and journal articles that are references for it. I think this is one of the values of Wikipedia and we shouldn't lose this.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey

(I copied and italicised my 3 messages below from THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) in order to have an unfragmented record of the discussion for reference.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I just thought I'd pay you a social visit and ask what the connection was between GFDL and DFT/TF editing that you mentioned in our discussion. I don't know much about GFDL. I just glanced at its wiki. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with TF theory ;), just anyone copying content from one article to a new one needs to explicitly note where it came from (in the edit summary) so to conform with the the GFDL Wikipedia is operating under. Tenuous recognition, but recognition none the less. I probably overemphasized that point on the talk page.

You sure work on a varied and interesting array of topics heh. Happy editing, THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! So I guess I'll say something in the edit summary like "Created article by copying section from Density functional theory".

Sorry to be a pill, but could you point out where I can find this requirement in Wikipedia? Just for my edification. Is it in some paragraph in the GFDL wiki that I missed?

It seems like everything in Wikipedia is covered by GFDL and Wikipedia is one work as far as GFDL is concerned so that copying something from one wiki to another wiki, where both are in Wikipedia is just moving it within the same work and doesn't need mentioning. Again, I'm just flying by the seat of my pants and I don't really know this stuff well, so I wouldn't be surprised if I got it wrong.

But in any case it would be a good edit summary to say where it came from and that's what I plan to do. I'm just curious about this GFDL stuff for my general knowledge and I'm trying to get straight what I don't understand. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The aspect in question is 4.I of WP:GFDL. The history is being preserved by noting where it came from, so that the people who wrote it down first could be determined. If someone/some organization took the content of the new article and put it on their own site, or used in whatever verbatim manner, GFDL requires the original content creators be acknowledged (by the original edit history). I think that sums it up, but I'm certainly no expert. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk)

Thanks for the info. Best regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Cost effectiveness

No, it was just a comment on Calamity's sloppy conflation of efficacy and cost-effectiveness.

My only real goal on this issue is to prevent the various views from getting an undue amount of attention in the article. I'd be happy with any one or two sentences that give a top-level summary of the situation: disinfection of water helps, but it's not the only issue, and experts disagree about whether it's really important, probably because there are lots of relevant factors (such as who's pooping in your watershed). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

rho & n

(I copied and italicised my two messages below from THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) in order to have an unfragmented record of the discussion for reference.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed that the LDA article uses ρ for electron density whereas DFT and TF use n. In order to be consistent with variable definitions in the related articles, my first thought was to suggest changing the ρ to n in the LDA article, since that would require the least amount of work. However, then I noticed that in the Gas in a box article that n was used for quantum numbers not electron density. So even though it is more work, maybe the change should be n to ρ in the DFT and TF articles? I'm not really sure about all this or whether it's worth bothering about. Do you have any thoughts on the matter? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm terribly biased to one of the usages, so I don't really want to give a solid opinion lol.

Bureaucratically speaking, if a common symbol is to be used n would have the upper hand as it was first introduced in to DFT in June 2004, whereas rho was introduced in to electronic density in June 2005 and TDFFT in 2007. I have a feeling rho maybe more natural to people who are reading about DFT for the first time, given its widespread usage for charge density and density. I don't pay enough attention to remember to what extent each is used in the literature, although Parr and Yang's use of rho may count for something. Gas in a box is a bit of a pain as the usage of n in that setting would be near universal, I think. But I'm sure people interested in that are grown up enough to cope with the usage in DFT too heh. Consistent usage is appealing and I don't think anyone would make a fuss either way (even me). The ease of doing a search and replace rho → n is also a compelling argument for whoever is going to take the time to make any changes. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and thanks for having a good natured attitude. I really mean it. I don't think I'll mess with the density variable consistency any more for now.

Best regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Relatively" harmless missile on the roof

I have problems with the article in general, but I appreciate your adjustment to conform with sources. RomaC (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested in hearing from you about some of the problems that you have with the article in general, if you care to mention them. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:NORDR

Hi, I thought you might want to know that I put up WP:NORDR as a Wikipedia essay. It has changed quite a bit since you saw it. Hope to hear from you soon. Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read it yet but I can still congratulate you on creating it!

There is one thing that I'm a little uncomfortable with. I appreciate the acknowledgement you gave me in the edit summary, and I'm sure you had the best of intentions, but it implies that I approve of what the essay contains. That's a bit premature and may not even turn out to be correct after I study it. Anyhow, congratulations. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope I clarified that here. Thanks!--Phenylalanine (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

NOR talk page

I saw your recent post to WT:NOR, which seemed a little cynical. Don't get too discouraged by the slow pace there. One issue is that people often have very different situations in mind when discussing the same part of the policy, and so it can be hard to figure out what the actual concerns of the other people are. The conversation itself can also be very stressful. But it's important to avoid edit warring for changes you favor, because it will essentially never improve things.

Sometimes I just take a break and find other things that are more enjoyable. In the end, the changes being discussed are always very minor, and they probably have no effect at all on actual editing practice. It would be nice if the policy were more clear about some things, but there are limitations to what can be achieved with something written by an open-membership committee that has little incentive to come to agreement. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for visiting my Talk page, but I don't agree with your assessment of the situation. Jayjg and SlimVirgin don't have the same restrictions as you or I because they edit war. An example of what they are capable of is when they edit warred to originally get the Synth example into WP:NOR.[4] Others may be aware of their capabilities in this regard and may be reluctant to oppose them since it would be a time consuming effort that would eventually be fruitless because of Jayjg's and SlimVirgin's edit warring. I hope you can do better than my expectations of what will happen in your effort. Good luck.

I should add that you have to convince either Jayjg or SlimVirgin. I say this from previous experience. I had a good consensus for the replacement of the example,[5] but I couldn't get it done because SlimVirgin and Jayjg blocked it.

BTW, just convincing Blueboar isn't going to give you a consensus. Keeping in mind my effort at getting a consensus with the example, how do you plan to get a consensus for graphs? I'm curious. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that I have to convince anyone. I am not trying to change the policy page, I'm just pointing out what it already says. I don't care about the change to the page itself as long as the general point is established. However, I am becoming more willing to speak up when I see edit warring on the page. (By the way, please don't use talkback templates on my page, I will respond here if I have time and energy). — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy note

[6]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Atrial fibrillation

Hi Bob: I like the recent changes to the a-fib article. I still wish we could get a better tracing. That doesn't look like a-fib to me, at least not a typical a-fib. My wife is working as a monitor tech, maybe she can get a good tracing I can scan or I can look through some charts here at work to see if I can find a good one. Dan D. Ric (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dan. Good to hear from you. The figure at the beginning of the article is a normal ECG and does seem inappropriate. But on the other hand, if we write about missing p waves in the beginning of the article, we would need to see what is missing. I've got no good solution to this editing puzzle, mainly because I'm not set up for making custom figures, or modifying existing figures, like the one at the beginning of the article.

However, there is an afib tracing in the Electrocardiogram section of the article. Were you thinking of getting something different than this tracing, or perhaps you didn't notice it? Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That second one is the tracing to which I am refering. I'm not convinced it is a-fib at all, the r-r is too regular. At best it might be a flutter but I'd call it sinus rhythm with some missed QRS complexes. Hard to tell for sure in just one lead. I'm still looking for a better example. I have a nice twelve lead but I'm not sure how well it will scan. Dan D. Ric (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for your comment on my talk about my essay. Some time in the next day or 2 I'll see if I need to tweak the wording a bit in light of your comments. Thanks! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Demcaps

Thanks for you kind and helpful involvement under this same heading on my talk page.
--Jerzy•t 02:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Citing_IMDb

Hi Bob K31416, there have been no objections to Wikipedia_talk:Citing_IMDb#Reviving_the_proposal, only Support and one who has remained skeptical but not directly opposing it yet you chose to close it as a failed proposal? Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_IMDb. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Rorschach

To get a thorough idea you would need to look at all of the archives. Some of the evidence is indirect because of the limitations in research that have been discussed (we can't intentionally place a research subject in a situation that would cause harm). You might start with Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 5#Other pages with controversial images. Somewhere I have posted sourced information on the talk page (now in the archives) that prior exposure to the test could invalidate the results, and I have posted sourced evidence that the Rorschach can successfully detect suicidality (not with 100% accuracy of course, but more than any other single test). It doesn't take a great leap in logic to make a connection between those two concepts and potential harm from prior exposure to the image. That's just the worst case scenario. Misdiagnosis itself can be harmful, and invalid test results can damage diagnosis. But you'll never find a study that clearly shows a cause-and-effect conclusion that says Patient X saw a Rorschach image, was administered the Rorschach, and produced invalid test results causing a missed detection of suicide, then comitted suicide; if patient X had not had invalid results, the suicide detection from the Rorschach would have occurred, and the suicide could have been prevented. That kind of research is impossible for a lot of reasons. Ward3001 (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A source about prior exposure and some others about suicide detection are in the "Arbitrary break" subsection of the archive I linked above. There's more out there on the effectiveness of the Rorschach Suicide Constellation; I just posted some representative articles. Ward3001 (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it there, do you Bob? I looked, but the only sources I saw quoted in that section were by Doc, and I see one reference by Ward that says "that the Rorschach can detect suicidality", but I don't see anything about the harm of showing the images. I really am looking. I know it would be simpler to just ask Ward, but he seems strangely unwilling to point it out to me. Chillum 02:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the source: Sciara, A.D., & Ritzler, B. (2006) The little book on administration for the Rorschach Comprehensive System. Asheville, NC: Rorschach Training Programs.[7] The relevant excerpt from the source would be useful. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I also would like to see the relevant passage from this source as it is not directly available to me today. Chillum 12:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Rorschach

I am off on holidays and will be away for a bit. I sure that this will continue no matter what the outcome. The APA blanket statement that all test material should be prevented from being seen by anyone other than psychologists is a little strange. I as a physician who takes care of psychiatric patient wish to know about the methods used by psychologist. When I look up this test for example I wish to see the images and the a discussion of the accuracy and weather there is evidence that it is better than cold reading for example. That the APA wishes to keep what they do secretive causes me concerns.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a point to clarify something. James' comments might suggest that the APA is acting as some sort of secret society, hiding information because they're ashamed of it or because it might get them into trouble. The facts are the opposite. The APA argues for test security for one overarching reason: to protect the public. Just as teachers don't release their tests before students take them because they know that the results would be quite skewed, so psychologists are told not to release test materials so results will not be invalidated, rendering the test results useless at best and harmful at worst. Test publishers also place restrictions on psychologist who purchase their tests, partly for the same reason (they are obligated to follow the ethics code), but also for the self-serving reason that it costs them millions of dollar to create a good test and widespread release would effectively ruin the test. I would also point out that most physicians have tremendous access to information about tests in university and hospital libraries, much of it online. Ward3001 (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

But still many physicians and medical students use Wikipedia extensively. The passwords and other protective layers make the use of University portals a bit of a pain.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Med students should have immediate access to a university or hospital library. I have taught third and fourth year med students, as well as psychiatric residents, and I have assigned journal material on a variety of topics. None have complained that the information is inaccessible. I know a dozen or so psychiatrists quite well. They regularly access psychological journals without any difficulties. Ward3001 (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the research you are doing at the Rorschach test article. Chillum 03:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

FD statistics

Hi, why have you deleted my edits, to the FD statistics page? Its not original, but I heard it in our Statistical Physics course... The derivation was so elegant, that I thought i should share it on wikipedia.. The other derivations I saw here on wikipedia are not so elegant and beautiful as you see... There is no published source, since the teacher gave the lecture from his personal notes, so i dont know how those will be referenced.. So please try to read it and im sure you will understand it, since its simple.., and after that you can verify that its a correct derivation.

regards

Kisfox —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kisfox (talk • contribs) 14:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for visiting. It didn't look very good to me. And since you mentioned that it isn't supported by a reliable source that we can cite, and thus not verifiable, then it definitely can't be included in the Wikipedia. Sorry. (See WP:V.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If we are so much after references then, could you please specify the part which is not good in the derivation? I mean, you just say its not good, but dont say why....

What more reliable source can be than your own brain.., if you say that its not good then i dont know what you are doing taking care of this physics article.. maybe you should go back to uni and study some more...(i didnt mean to be harsh, just its frustrating when you make an opinion about something you havent read properly..) And also i dont see a reliable source for the other derivation with lagrange multipliers.. no matter how good it looks, so that has to be removed too if we are on this track.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.135.148.21 (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I copied the subject derivation over here and added equation numbers. If you like, I can discuss the derivation with you for our mutual interest in physics, although it can't be included in the wiki because it is unpublished. Would you like to discuss it anyhow? If so, I'll start.

derivation

Suppose we have   $N$ identical fermions, subject to the constraints elaborated in the beginning of the article. Let $\epsilon _{i}$ be the energy of the i-th level, $E_{l}(N)$ be the energy of the l-th state and $n_{i}$ be the number of fermions occupying $\epsilon _{i}$. We know that this can take on only two values, namely $n_{i}=0,1$. The idea for the derivation is to define the following quantity. Let $p_{i}(N)$ be the probability that $n_{i}=1$ in the i-th state, i.e. the i-th energy level is occupied. We can see then, that the probability of the i-th state not being occupied, is simply $1-p_{i}(N)$.   This means the expected value of of   $n_{i}$   is:

        ${\bar {n}}_{i}=1\cdot p_{i}(N)+0\cdot (1-p_{i}(N))=p_{i}(N)$                 (1)

Hence our only job is to calculate  $p_{i}(N)$ . Lets define the following sets:

        ${\mathcal {A}}(N)=\{{\text{The set of states for which}}\;\;\;n_{i}=1\}$                   (2)

        ${\mathcal {B}}(N)=\{{\text{The set of states for which}}\;\;\;n_{i}=0\}$                  (3)

We have then for the probability:

       $p_{i}(N)=\sum _{l\in {\mathcal {A}}(N)}{\frac {1}{Z_{N}}}e^{-\beta E_{l}(N)}=1-\sum _{l\in {\mathcal {B}}(N)}{\frac {1}{Z_{N}}}e^{-\beta E_{l}(N)}$                  (4)

Now consider the two sets   ${\mathcal {A}}(N+1)$ and ${\mathcal {B}}(N)$. The first set describes a system of $N+1$ particles with $n_{i}=1$ on the i-th level, whereas the second set a system of $N$ particles with $n_{i}=0$ on the i-th level. This means that we have N particles left in both of the systems, which need to be placed on some energy level other than the i-th one. Hence we can make bijective map between the two systems i.e. we can relate the different states unambiguously to each other.   We can wrtie then accordingly:

        $p_{i}(N)=1-\sum _{l\in {\mathcal {B}}(N)}{\frac {1}{Z_{N}}}e^{-\beta E_{l}(N)}=1-\sum _{l\in {\mathcal {A}}(N+1)}{\frac {1}{Z_{N}}}e^{-\beta [E_{l}(N+1)-\epsilon _{i}]}=$                  (5)

       $=1-{\frac {Z_{N+1}}{Z_{N}}}\left(\sum _{l\in {\mathcal {A}}(N+1)}{\frac {1}{Z_{N+1}}}e^{-\beta E_{l}(N+1)}\right)\cdot e^{\beta \epsilon _{i}}=1-{\frac {Z_{N+1}}{Z_{N}}}p_{i}(N+1)e^{\beta \epsilon _{i}}$                  (6)

The Helmholtz free energy of the system of N particles:  $F_{N}=-kT\ln(Z_{N})=-\ln(Z_{N})/\beta$. With this the ratio of the partition functions:

       ${\frac {Z_{N+1}}{Z_{N}}}=e^{-\beta (F_{N+1}-F_{N})}$                   (7)

Lets assume that the number N of fermions is so great, that adding another one, doesnt make a difference in the system. This means that &nbsp$p_{(}N)\approx p_{i}(N+1)$ and:

       $F_{N+1}-F_{N}\approx {\frac {\partial F}{\partial N}}(N+1-N)={\frac {\partial F}{\partial N}}=\mu$                  (8)

Plugging this into the previous equation:

       $p_{i}(N)=1-e^{-\beta \mu }p_{i}(N)e^{\beta \epsilon _{i}}=1-p_{i}(N)e^{\beta (\epsilon _{i}-\mu )}$                  (9)

Rearranging the above equation we get the probability which as we saw is equal to the expected value of  $n_{i}$ :

       $p_{i}(N)={\bar {n}}_{i}={\frac {1}{e^{\beta (\epsilon _{i}-\mu )}+1}}$                  (10)

--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I am waiting for your response to my previous question before I start discussing it with you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

NOR examples

Please assume good faith... The fact that someone expresses an opinion that seems to contradict what they said earlier is not evidence of "party" action... It is not at all uncommon for people to change their mind after reading a comment by someone else. If you look at the record, I too expressed guarded approval of your example when you first proposed it... however, after reading the comments of SV and others, I have taken a half step back and am now of the opinion that it is not as good as the current one. I am still of the opinion that what we need is three examples ... to present a range of synt issues... starting with a very simple one that demonstrates a very basic form of Synt (with the conclusion stated) so that new editors get the basic idea (and I don't think your proposed example is simple enough for this)... then one that is a bit more complex (with the conclusion implied) that shows that Synt isn't always simple (and I think the Laurent/SV example is perfect for this)... and one that is very complex (such as the old Smith and Jones plagerism example) to show how complex the issue can get. However, I seem to be in the minority on that, so I have stopped pushing for it.

As for my filing an RFC or raising the issue at the Village Pump ... I have no problem with keeping the current example, so I have have no real motivation for doing so. You are the one with objections, so the effort to obtain a broader number of opinions should be on your part. I was mearly suggesting a way to break out of a discussion where we were endlessly repeating ourselves and move the debate forward. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Re "I am still of the opinion that what we need is three examples ... to present a range of synt issues... starting with a very simple one that demonstrates a very basic form of Synt (with the conclusion stated)." - I agree that there should be a simple example. I tried recently and many months before, without success. Perhaps now you should try. Good luck. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Electrothermal instability

Hi Tokamac, Where did you get the article Electrothermal instability from? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bob, sorry for the late answer. I wrote this article as a popularization of various scientific papers published in academic journals about this specific plasma instability (see some of the references in the wikipeda article) and direct useful advice from a retired plasma physicist specialized in nonequilibrium magnetohydrodynamics. Tokamac (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen a wiki start out in such a mature form, so congratulations on your work. Well done. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Help

{{adminhelp}}

My rfc announcement for this section got garbled on the announcement page, perhaps because there was a wikilink in the section title. I think only an administrator can fix this because the RFC bot will undo any of my edits on the announcement page. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed; was just a malformed link.  Chzz  ►  01:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Blood pressure

(Below is a continuation of a previous discussion at Template talk:Citation/core #Sources with multiple authors .)

Nice to see that my suggestions worked... there's one small matter of style, that is entirely up to you. It does not affect the mechanism for the citation linking.

As I read it, the journal article in question has ten authors; however, the {{cite journal}} template allows for no more than nine authors (whether specified as |authorn=, as pairs of |firstn=/|lastn= or a mixture. I suggested four, being the minimum required for {{harv}} to behave properly and still show "et al" in the Footnotes section; but it might be better to show as many as possible under "References" (give credit where credit is due) - unfortunately there is no official method to show more than eight distinct authors, but I think that we can fiddle the system to get the last two into the page source (even though they won't actually display), by cramming them into |author9=, as below.

Basically, I have found that if you provide nine authors to {{cite journal}} it will automatically do an "et al" after a certain point; by default, this is after the eighth author, but other positions may be set (see later). So, instead of this:

|author5=et al

try this:

|first5=J |last5=Graves |first6=MN |last6=Hill |first7=DW |last7=Jones |first8=T |last8=Kurtz |author9=Sheps, SG; Roccella, EJ

which will give something like this (I shortened the title here, and removed the URL, DOI etc. purely for demonstration purposes):

Pickering, TG; Hall, JE; Appel, LJ; Falkner, BE; Graves, J; Hill, MN; Jones, DW; Kurtz, T; Sheps, SG; Roccella, EJ (2005). "Recommendations for blood pressure measurement ...". Hypertension. 45 (5): 142–61.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

You might feel that fewer than eight distinct authors would be better. I'm not sure just how many authors are best to show; and I don't really know where to look for guidance; but let's say that you felt that six was best. You would do it using |display-authors= like this:

|first5=J |last5=Graves |first6=MN |last6=Hill |first7=DW |last7=Jones |first8=T |last8=Kurtz |author9=Sheps, SG; Roccella, EJ |display-authors=6

will give something like this:

Pickering, TG; Hall, JE; Appel, LJ; Falkner, BE; Graves, J; Hill, MN; et al. (2005). "Recommendations for blood pressure measurement ...". Hypertension. 45 (5): 142–61.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Really though, it's entirely up to you whether you want to specify further authors in {{cite journal}} - but as I mentioned before, leave {{harv}} alone, because that won't handle more than four. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I had thought that Wikipedia style had 3 authors and then et al, but I was unable to find that recommendation anywhere when I looked for it after reading your message. I just now posed the question at the Help Desk. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

To which I have added a supplementary, which covers my earlier observation about the nine-author restriction. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a good addition to the good discussion there. After reading yours and other discussion, my current feeling is: 1. all authors should be displayed in the references or footnotes sections except in additional mentioning of a reference, e.g. when something like {{harv}} is used. 2. the undocumented "display-authors=" should be documented. 3. the number of authors in {{cite journal}} and similar templates should be increased beyond 9, as one of the respondents at the Help Desk suggested. If that's not feasible, your workaround for increasing the number should be documented, and lastly 4. guidance for the use of "et al" should be given in the guidelines. I'll wait a little while to see what else comes up in the discussion before mentioning these points at the Help Desk discussion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I found where I got the idea that et al. should be used after 3 authors, sort of. (I was editing a medical article at the time.):[8]

AMA citation guidelines suggest that if there are more than six authors, include only the first three, followed by et al.

But the sentence that came after it said something different:

The Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (URM) citation guidelines list up to six authors, followed by et al if there are more than six.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I modified the article to follow the AMA guideline for Pickering 2005. Also modified 6 {{harv}} inline citations that were affected by the Pickering 2005 modification.[9] --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Have just looked at that edit. I guess it works; but to meet the same guideline, you could have left all the {{harv}} alone, and also left {{cite journal}} as it was with the exception of simply adding |display-authors=3 to it. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I recognized that but I felt that it might give an editor the false impression that there were only 4 authors.

BTW, I was curious how you came across or discovered the very useful "display-authors=".

Just for fun, I looked to see if there was a Wikipedia article on "et al." and I was redirected to et al. Here's an excerpt from it.

APA style uses et al. if the work cited was written by more than six authors; MLA style uses et al. for more than three authors.

Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at {{cite journal}}, |display-authors= is not shown in the five different sets of blank parameters; but later on, under Legend:

author: Author. Use to specify a single author of the paper, or alternately, to specify all the authors of the paper in whatever format desired. If you use author to specify all the authors, do not specify the following author-related parameters. last works with first to produce last, first;. These parameters produce the maximum metadata and should be used if possible. author2, last2, first2 and subsequent should be used for co-authors (up to 9 will be displayed before truncation with "et al". authorlink works either with author or with last & first to link to the appropriate article (InterWikimedia links) coauthors: Full name of additional author or authors. Please use 'author2', 'author3', etc instead. author-separator: over-ride the default semi-colon that separates authors' names. Template:AuthorMask doc author-name-separator: over-ride the default comma that separates authors' names. display-authors: Truncate the list of authors at an arbitrary point with "et al". Still include the first 9 authors to allow metadata to be generated.

The main thing that makes me want to fit in as many authors as poss (even if only three are actually displayed) is this business about "metadata". It's principally to do with COinS, see also Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats/COinS. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a very good point re COinS. I haven't looked into COinS before but it looks like all the authors should be put in the metadata for this reason that you mentioned. It seems that your workaround for adding more authors than 9 would work with COinS too. I plan to make that change in Pickering 2005 if it works with {{harv}}. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I just made the change.[10] --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, since the COinS metadata is generated by the {{cite journal}}, and not by {{harv}}, you only need four authors in {{harv}} and it will et al. automatically. I would suggest "Falkner" for the fourth, rather than that long string that you have used. For {{cite journal}}, fit in as many as possible. Having reviewed the mechanism by which it works, I'd say that the following may give the best result:

|first1=TG |last1=Pickering |first2=JE |last2=Hall |first3=LJ |last3=Appel |first4=BE |last4=Falkner |first5=J |last5=Graves |first6=MN |last6=Hill |first7=DW |last7=Jones |first8=T |last8=Kurtz |author9=Sheps, SG; Roccella, EJ |display-authors=3

--Redrose64 (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but I was trying to make the situation clearer for other editors who would encounter the {{harv}}s on the edit page and may not know that there are other authors. Perhaps I should use what you suggested and clarify for editors using hidden comments. How does that sound?--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hidden comment, yes; this could contain a list of the fifth and subsequent authors - or an instruction such as "fifth and subsequent authors omitted, see documentation for Template:Harv" --Redrose64 (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again and for all your help. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The Great Escape - Tom, Dick, and Harry

Hi Bob. The Tom, Dick & Harry reference you've deleted is not actually spam. It refers to both the movie and the very popular ad agency. I just noted both. It's been written about in the CHicago Tribune and other publications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenpara (talk • contribs) 06:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Stephen, Thanks for your message. First off, I liked your advertisement, even though I don't think it's appropriate for The Great Escape (film) article. The usual procedure when you feel your edit of an article has been incorrectly reverted (removed in this case) is to open up discussion on the article's talk page, rather than to put it back into the article. I created a section there for us and others to continue the discussion.

Welcome to Wikipedia, --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

stevertigo

please take your questions to steve's talk or the appropriate article talkpage and let that an/i page die. thanks. untwirl(talk) 16:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice but I intend to use my own judgement if Stevertigo responds to my brief request for his comment. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Syllogisms

Thanks for your help with WP:NOR. Brews ohare (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

SOL imperial units source

Bob, there's not reason to belabor this point beyond what's in the source that was found to support it. The source was actually, pretty careful, pointing out that the US/British inch in exactly 2.54 cm; that's not the case in all countries, and your citing of a US document did nothing to clarify. Dicklyon (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, it was Price who did half of what I'm objecting to there. Dicklyon (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dick. I'm not sure what the problem is. I thought that I had essentially what you had before, with a more full citation for the Savard source. Could you clarify what you mean? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Go back to before Price's change and tell me what you would do there. It's not clear what your intent was. Dicklyon (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's what was before Michael's edit.

As shown by John Savard, the speed of light can also be expressed exactly in US/British imperial units, based on an inch of exactly 2.54 cm, as 186,282 miles, 698 yards, 2 feet, and 5+21⁄127 inches per second.

I would have just changed from a link to Savard, to a full citation of Savard, with archived version. Or I may have done nothing.

Here's what it looked like before you reverted.

The speed of light can also be expressed exactly in imperial units and US units, based on an inch of exactly 2.54 cm, as 186,282 miles, 698 yards, 2 feet, and 5+21⁄127 inches per second. Savard, John. "From Gold Coins to Cadmium Light". John Savard's Home Page. Retrieved 2009-11-14. {{cite web}}: External link in |work= (help) Archived version 2009-11-14

Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I got confused by Michael's changes; a full citation would be fine. Dicklyon (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Honest mistake. I reverted back to my last version. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Avatar

"average rating" → "rating average" = brilliant! :) Erik (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. An interesting problem. In the context on the RT website it's meaning is clear, but in the context of the article the meaning isn't as clear. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Avatar

Hi, Bob. In response to your earlier query, my source was: Maria Wilhelm and Dirk Mathison: Avatar: A Confidential Report on the Biological and Social History of Pandora: New York: HarperCollins: 2009: ISBN 0007342446. As an official movie tie-in, it's a canonical source, I suspect.

Sorry that I didn't pop in the reference originally on the page, but I was experiencing a last minute Xmas shopping rush and was forced to leave off editing it. As you can see from the page now, the source has been added. Calibanu (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)User Calibanu

Bowstring Afterload

[Original question at User talk:Lbeben --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)].

Thank you sir for your question, I am pleased to oblige on two primary sources.

1. 1 [Charles S. Peskin and David M. McQueen Interview]

  5/4/94 for the Smithsonian
  Specifically referring to Dr. Peskins' lengthy answer regarding "Mathematical Collagen Fibers" 

Peskin quotes a Dr. Carolyn Thomas who apparently was an anatomist in New England in the 1950s. Her early drawings of the porcine heart have led to the focusing of several Kray mainframes on the work of the myocardium.

1. 2 [Basic Science Review: The helix and the Heart] Gerald D. Buckberg

Buckberg extensively quotes the late Dr. Francisco Torrent-Guasp regarding myocardial band theory.

In composing these two paragraphs, I hope to better illuminate these concepts to non-medical readers of a web-based encyclopedia.

Study of physiologic Compliance suggests mathematical proof of what is not Afterload. ["A new noninvasive method for the estimation of peak dP/dt" Circulation 1993]--lbeben 03:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source that discusses the bowstring physics of the heart that you presented and uses the term "bowstring physics" with regard to the heart? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob I was hoping my references better defined the `3000 Bowstrings concept first imagined in the 1950s. References to physics in bowstring performance are abundant. Imagine a defined array of 3000 flexible strings anchored to a solid collagen ring, then factor it up to four rings in a triangular grouping with the AoV in the center. The collagen density of the valve rings and skeleton of the heart is far greater than the sets of opposed cardiomyocytes. I can't write this publically, but I think when the strings are released they yield an audible pop while the AV valves close and the ventricles open like a full sail to the wind. The compliance of the sail flags as we get older and the acoustic signature of S1 is probably greatly diminished in year 80 compared to year 20. I greatly appreciate your interest in this esoteric topic.--lbeben 02:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbeben (talk • contribs)

I appreciate your efforts, but unfortunately WP:NOR is pretty clear that what goes into Wikipedia cannot be an editor's own unpublished research. May I suggest that you make edits by first reading about the subject in a reliable source and then taking that material and putting it in an article with the citation for that reliable source. Also, the source should be one that is accessible to readers, e.g. a peer reviewed journal is good. If you would like any help or advice about making citations, etc., let me know. Cheers, --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sir I sincerely appreciate your counsel, discussion and edits regarding afterload, I remain hopeful we may continue to discuss other areas relevant to heart disease in the future. The ECG, atrial fibrillation, heart failure and Chagas Disease all remain topics of great interest to me. Best wishes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbeben (talk • contribs) 02:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Redthoreau's Avatar edits

Noticed that you reverted them, what are your feelings about it? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like Redthoreau's edits undid some long careful work and were not rational. I noticed that Redthoreau reverted my revert, made more changes, and was soon followed by an editor who made edits throughout the article that weren't clear from the diffs (who seems to be high up in the Wikipedia establishment from his user page), and another editor who believes that the film is not American. Did you agree or disagree with their edits, or do you have some other feelings about it? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Opinion about a source for Titanic (1997 film) article

Hey, Bob. I have used this source for the Titanic (1997 film) article. Streetdirectory.com is a reliable source, and the place the source is from seems reliable, as well as the author of the piece, but I am worried about it being an anecdote. Some of this guy's retailing of events can be backed up by more reliable sources, and is in a few parts in the article, but would you say that this source is appropriate to use?

On a side note, Titanic is playing on TNT right now where I am; it will be over soon, though. I feel that they are mainly playing it right now, because Avatar is about to beat it. LOL. With Avatar set to become the highest-grossing film of all time, it makes sense that they would show the previous highest-grossing film also by Cameron. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look very reliable. He's a Hollywood tour guide, who picks up stories from here and there, not saying where, so it's not clear to me how much of what he says is true. It looks like what he got was by word of mouth, that may have been passed around by a string of intermediaries, being modified at each passing from one to the next, and some of it may even have been a fabrication from the beginning of the string.

Hope you enjoyed TNTitanic! Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your take on this. "[W]ord of mouth, that may have been passed around by a string of intermediaries, being modified at each passing from one to the next" is what an anecdote can become (which is why I linked to it above). I basically included the source, because, as I stated, some of what he says is also noted in more reliable sources; it is stuff that I am already quite familiar with. I also initially did not pay attention to the source more closely. I figured that he also had to be right about the stuff I am not as familiar with, such as the certain quotes he says are from Cameron. My mistake, I know. It is of course better to go with more reliable sources. I did that with stuff like who else was considered for the role of Rose, and for Cameron pitching Titanic as Romeo and Juliet on the Titanic (or on a boat, as other sources say). Anyway, I will remove the source. For the parts, where he is the only source, I will replace him with more reliable sources. If I cannot find reliable sources for some of those parts, I will remove them completely.

As for TNTitanic (LOL!), I was basically watching the end of the film (the last 30 or 35 minutes). But, yeah, it is always okay to watch this film. And even though I have a copy of it (on video, not DVD; it was given to me as a gift way back in the late 1990s), I have not watched it as many times as some people have, due to not wanting to get too tired of watching it (not watching it for a year or years helps with that, LOL). I only saw it in theaters once, but I feel that I will go see it in theaters in 2011...if it is indeed released in theaters then. Flyer22 (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Say, I saw the beginning of Cameron's Aliens last night. There seemed to be parallels to Avatar, with Ripley having some things in common with Jake, then there's the Corp rep, a platoon of soldiers helping them, etc. I also remember from previous viewings that the Lieutenant in command of the soldiers was portrayed as inexperienced and incompetent, and Ripley took command and saved the day, at least in one scene with the low slung armored personnel carrier, driven by Ripley, over the objections of the lieutenant, to rescue the soldiers in trouble from the horde of aliens in the building. With that portrayal of the lieutenant, and the colonel in Avatar, and the Corporation guys, I'm getting the feeling that Cameron resents authority in general, except his own, and this resentment might be fueled by problems he has had in dealing with movie execs who might give him a hard time. I don't remember how the authorities (Captain, etc.) in his Titanic came off in the movie. Were they favorably treated by the film? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Turns out that tour guide man's story can indeed mostly be backed up. It's just that his wording was a little different for some quotes, like Cameron telling Leonardo DiCaprio that he knew DiCaprio wanted to portray Jack with a limp...and Kate Winslet relentlessly contacting Cameron to get the part of Rose. Some of the other stuff tour guide man stated is covered by other sources that were are already in the article. I feel that he did not get all or even most of this information from hearsay, but rather from research. And, really, being a Hollywood tour guide, I would expect him to know a lot about Hollywood and its stars. I still need to find sources for these two parts, though:

• After she screen tested with DiCaprio, she was so thoroughly impressed with him, that she whispered to Cameron, "He's great. Even if you don't pick me, pick him."

• There was a tense pause and Cameron said, "Also, fellas, it's a period piece, it's going to cost $150,000,000 and there's not going to be a sequel."

As for Cameron having a problem with authority figures? Hmm. You may be right. He certainly does not like Fox suggesting any kind of alteration of his films. But then again, what director, or even simply a screenwriter, would? Anyway...I would say that he treated the authority figures fine with Titanic, except for that whole First Officer William McMaster Murdoch matter. I was watching Aliens the other day as well. AMC loves to show it, along with Alien and the other sequels. Flyer22 (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Re "It's just that his wording was a little different for some quotes" - Sometimes small changes in wording can change the meaning, without the change being obvious. The change could be from being transmitted word-of-mouth, from one person to the next to the next... . That's why it's better to get the quote from something written that ultimately comes from the person who first heard the person being quoted, without change. Also, the tour guide may have changed the wording as he tries to recall it from memory for his tours. Or the other source may have gotten it wrong. Without more info about where the quotes came from, it's not clear which is more reliable, the tour guide or the other source. The more reliable forms of quotes are from someone writing an article where they have interviewed the person being quoted. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean. And, again, thanks for the help. Flyer22 (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

One more thing: Something else to take into consideration, Bob, is that the tour guide is trying to be funny/amusing for a lot, if not all, of these stories and may have purposely changed the wording a little because of that. That is another reason to go with a more reliable source, of course. But, yeah, I will see you back on the Avatar article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Avatar

Please see Talk:Avatar#Literary antecedents (Themes and inspirations) -- Jheald (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Nationalist

Just a quick note Bob. I know we've crossed swords a few times on the Avatar talk page but it was improper of me to accuse you of a nationalist bias, but you know, it was late and I was tired and I was a bit tetchy. You haven't given me any reason to doubt you haven't got the best interests of the article at heart. The main thing for the article is that it remains stable and any disputes stay on the discussion page which is a principle we both seem to respect. Betty Logan (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your coming over here to say that. It speaks well for you. Best regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Bob:

Please see WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:DEADHORSE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.242.126 (talk) 05:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What was this in regard to? It appears to be a copy of my response to your comment at the end of the section here. Even though I disagreed with the editor you were attacking, to the extent that I complained about that editor for edit warring and that editor was blocked, I think it's best not to make personal attacks because in general they lead to an unproductive editing environment for everyone, including you and me. That's why I referred you to WP:NPA and to the other parts of Wikipedia for similar reasons. Just trying to improve the Wikipedia editing environment. Nothing personal. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"Speed of Light" Arbitration case

Hello, Bob K31416. If you are interested, there is a request for amendement regarding this matter. I was told that you were interested.Likebox (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Modification of Brews' sanctions

Hi Bob:

Thanks for your participation in this action. Unfortunately, no amount of practical suggestions, good humor, or (by the way) evidence, can replace clairvoyance, omniscience, and (by the way) prejudice. Brews ohare (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I wish that I could give you some good advice, but I'm not sure what to say. Maybe some advice would be not to take it personally. Sounds weird I know but it may still be useful to have that attitude.   --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bob: Yep, I shouldn't take it personally, and I do not. I take it as evidence that the appeal process has not worked: suggestions and evidence have been ignored completely, without excuse. That is sad for WP, as discussion on Talk pages is headed toward bus-stop conversation:

"Nice weather, eh?"

"So you say!"

"Uh, OK." Brews ohare (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Leading the effort

Unfortunately, I think Wikid and North8000 may not have as good of a grasp on what needs to be done to correct this wiki policy problem as you do. I think you and I will probably have to lead the way. Scott P. (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

So far I haven't seen the problem that you are referring to. Sorry. But I'm trying to stay open minded. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I said this because while I know that we all have essentially the same views here, neither of them seems to be able to express themselves in a very persuasive manner. Their postings on my talk page seem to be essentially good, but when reading through them, they take so much time to get to the meat of them, that I don't see them as making good spokesmen for our 'first line of attack'. I think that their difficulty in summarizing their positions well, might have actually made it more difficult for us to win the last debate over at the WP:NOR talk page. Not that it was actually ever a 'winnable' battle, due to what I see as the major entrenchment of the three defenders of the status-quo there.

I think that their endorsement of this cause will still be helpful, but that you and I would probably make the best front-line debaters in this attempt to restore reason to WP:SYN.

Thanks for your input thus far Bob. I hope that you might get a chance to look at my recent posting at Jimbo's talk page and to hopefully comment on it either here or at my talk page when you get a chance.

Scott P. (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Acutally, when I mentioned "problem", I meant "policy problem", i.e. I haven't seen the policy problem that you are referring to, viz. editing abuse in articles because of the present form of WP:SYN. I requested from you an example of how the present form of WP:SYNTH can be used for abuse and I don't think you have responded. Wikid77 gave an effort at responding to my request with two examples that didn't turn out to hold up. Do you have an example from the editing of an actual article? Again, sorry but I don't see any evidence so far that would enable me to support you. Also, you might reread one of my earlier messages on your talk page where I explained my position, which might be characterized as friendly disagreement with you, and which means that I will try to keep an open mind. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)\

WAD

Bob: I really don't know what the >> symbols are "for." Haven't looked too closely. As always, am interested in content much more than formatting. If you'd like to see them removed, then go to town !!!! Calamitybrook (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer review of Avatar (2009 film)

I have requested for Avatar (2009 film) to be peer reviewed. Since I saw you were one of it's top contributors, I thought I should let you know. Feel free to to fix any objections on the peer review page. Thanks.Guy546^(Talk) 22:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Pythagoras's Theorem

Bob, I'll answer your question about the triangle in more detail here, since you seem to be genuinely interested in getting to the bottom of the issue. I am fully aware of the fact that a triangle sits in a two dimensional plane. But you are overlooking a number of factors. Trivially, there is the fact that every two dimensional plane has an associated perpendicular. Two dimensions don't ever exist in the absence of the third dimension.

Secondly, you correctly pointed out that the Pythagoras theorem is a special case of the cosine rule. The cosine rule is about angles, and so therefore is Pythagoras's theorem about angles. The triangle is all about three angles. Those angles all require the third dimension in order to have any meaning. We cannot have a rotation about a point, as someone has suggested. We need a perpendicular direction.

But the full argument can all be very neatly summed up in the three dimensional version of the Lagrange identity which is effectively Pythagoras's theorem in the form,

$|\mathbf {a} |^{2}|\mathbf {b} |^{2}-|\mathbf {a} \cdot \mathbf {b} |^{2}=|\mathbf {a} \times \mathbf {b} |^{2}\ ,$

This equation clearly contains both an inner product and an outer product, yet the section in the main article on Pythagoras's theorem called 'inner product spaces' is trying to treat Pythagoras's theorem in the absence of any mention of the outer product.

Anyway, I thought that you were also driving at the fact that the sources that deal with the 'n' dimensional Pythagoras theorem only talked about it in terms of being a definition of distance. You were hinting earlier that you didn't think that the 'n' dimensional cosine rule should be in the article. What actually is your own viewpoint on the matter? David Tombe (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!

1) Re "We cannot have a rotation about a point, as someone has suggested." - I don't see why not. Would you care to say more about it?

2) re "You were hinting earlier that you didn't think that the 'n' dimensional cosine rule should be in the article. What actually is your own viewpoint on the matter?" - Well, perhaps I can express my feelings on all the stuff related to the section that is now called "Inner product spaces". I think the section now looks fine. I'm pleased with how it turned out. I may revisit it and see how it fits in with the rest of the sections when the dust clears, but I'm pretty satisfied with it for now.

3) The equation you have above came from Lounesto p. 96. He calls it the Pythagorean Theorem. But next he says that it can also be written as

$|\mathbf {a} \times \mathbf {b} |=|\mathbf {a} |\ |\mathbf {b} |\ sin(\mathbf {a} ,\mathbf {b} )$

But isn't this the definition of the magnitude of the cross product, rather than the Pythagorean Theorem? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, On your point number (1), I simply can't imagine a rotation without a rotation axis. I can't really say anything more on that matter. It's just a question of belief. On your point number (2), the section 'inner product spaces' is actually written up very well indeed, and it is very clear. It certainly ties in with the sources. But that is not the point. Somebody wanted to highlight the fact that the actual interpretation of Pythagoras's theorem actually changes when we generalize it to inner product spaces. That emphasis has now been removed from the article by virtue of the title change and the fact that that section was moved away to a different location. On your point number (3), the bottom line is that cross product (outer product) is intricately linked up with Pythagoras's theorem, whereas there seems to be a focus in the article on the inner product and a tendency to brush the outer product aside. I've replied to Carl again on the Pythagoras's theorem talk page. Perhaps you should take a look at that reply. David Tombe (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

1) Re "I simply can't imagine a rotation without a rotation axis." - See Rotation. Note at the beginning, "A two-dimensional object rotates around a center (or point) of rotation."

3) Starting with the familiar form of the Pythagorean Theorem,

$c^{2}\ =\ a^{2}\ +\ b^{2}$

$|\mathbf {a} +\mathbf {b} |^{2}=|\mathbf {a} |^{2}+|\mathbf {b} |^{2}$

then using the familiar definitions,

$|\mathbf {a} +\mathbf {b} |^{2}=(\mathbf {a} +\mathbf {b} )\cdot (\mathbf {a} +\mathbf {b} )$

$|\mathbf {a} \times \mathbf {b} |\ =\ |\mathbf {a} |\ |\mathbf {b} |\ sin(a,b)$

  $\mathbf {a} \cdot \mathbf {b} \ \ \ =\ |\mathbf {a} |\ |\mathbf {b} |\ cos(a,b)$

$sin(a,b)\ =\ {\frac {|\mathbf {a} |}{|\mathbf {a} +\mathbf {b} |}}$

$cos(a,b)\ =\ {\frac {|\mathbf {b} |}{|\mathbf {a} +\mathbf {b} |}}$

along with simple algebra, one can derive,

$|\mathbf {a} |^{2}|\mathbf {b} |^{2}-|\mathbf {a} \cdot \mathbf {b} |^{2}=|\mathbf {a} \times \mathbf {b} |^{2}\ ,$

So this equation with the cross product is just a rewriting of the simple Pythagorean theorem c²=a²+b² using the above definitions. I don't see any special interpretation of the appearance of either the inner or outer products here.

I noticed that you mentioned on the article talk page that, "This suggests that Pythagoras's theorem is strictly a 3D affair." I don't think so because only the magnitude of the cross product appears in the equation, and this occurs because that magnitude is defined in terms of the sine. For example, we can rewrite the same equation in terms of the sine.

$|\mathbf {a} |^{2}|\mathbf {b} |^{2}-|\mathbf {a} \cdot \mathbf {b} |^{2}=|\mathbf {a} |^{2}\ |\mathbf {b} |^{2}\ sin^{2}(a,b)$

If you still feel there is some special interpretation of the appearance of the magnitude of the cross product, is there a source that discusses it? Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, I know all about the above manipulations. But are you aware of the fact that the cross product only exists in 0, 1, 3 and 7 dimensions? That is certainly a well sourced fact. David Tombe (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "But are you aware of the fact that the cross product only exists in 0, 1, 3 and 7 dimensions?" - Could you show me the source for that so that I can read it and understand it better? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, There is a wikipedia article entitled seven dimensional cross product and it contains alot of sources. Nobody was ever disputing the fact that cross product only holds non-trivially in 3 and 7 dimensions. The prolonged debate on the talk page at that article was about whether or not the equation,

$|\mathbf {a} |^{2}|\mathbf {b} |^{2}-|\mathbf {a} \cdot \mathbf {b} |^{2}=|\mathbf {a} \times \mathbf {b} |^{2}\$

is valid in seven dimensions. Initially, I wrongly believed that it wasn't valid in 7 dimensions, but after trying out numbers, I finally had to concede that it is indeed valid in seven dimensions. However, nobody at that page was ever arguing that its validity extended outside 3 or 7 dimensions. David Tombe (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like I've got some reading to do. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, Yes indeed, it is alot of reading, and in retrospect I can see now that there is alot of chaff and unneccessary wrangling over terminologies. I'll now give you a brief summary.

(1) Everybody agreed from the beginning that the cross product only holds in 0,1, 3, and 7 dimensions. This has been known since the 19th century, but a formal proof has only existed since the 1960's. I discovered about the 7D cross product only many years after leaving university, and that was while browsing through a 'history of maths' article in an Encyclopaedia Britannica. It told me that no formal proof yet existed for the fact that cross product only exists in 0,1,3, and 7 dimensions, but that one was nearing completion, and that it was very complex.

So the first argument on the talk page was over the fact that the reason given in the article for the proof of the fact that cross product only exists in 0,1,3,and 7 dimensions, was not adequate. Since then, sources have been provided which give the modern proofs, but these proofs themselves still don't appear in the article as such, not that that necessarily matters as such.

(2) Then came the issue of the equation,

$|\mathbf {a} |^{2}|\mathbf {b} |^{2}-|\mathbf {a} \cdot \mathbf {b} |^{2}=|\mathbf {a} \times \mathbf {b} |^{2}\$

I had sources, including two wikipedia articles, which showed that this equation was the special 3D case of the Lagrange identity. And so it is. But John Blackburne claimed that it held in 7D as well. I disagreed initially. But finally John Blackburne told me to use numbers to test it out. I did so and was forced to concede that John Blackburne was correct. I then re-examined the analysis and figured that in 7D, the right hand side of the equation contains 7 terms which expand into 252 terms. That is 3 groups of 84. Two of these groups mutually cancel, and we are left with 84 terms that reduce to 21 terms in brackets anti-distributively. The 21 terms are the terms needed to make the equation valid with the magnitude of the 7D cross product. This only works in 3D and 7D. The 3D case is easy because the right hand side contains only three terms and the cross product relationship is self evident.

Anyway, the point is that cross product only holds non-trivially in 3 and 7 dimensions, and everybody is agreed about that. Hence Pythagoras's theorem can be shown to be a special case of the Lagrange identity, but only in 3D, with 7D being a special half-way house case. David Tombe (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to look at Lounesto p.96 and pages before it, but they are no longer viewable. It's as if they wanted me to buy the book. Hummph, how dare they.

Anyhow. Does the same definition of cross product in 3-dim in terms of the sine, hold in n-dim except for the possibility that the unit vector in the direction of the cross product may not be unique? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob. Good question. The first questions that naturally arise when one first contemplates the concept of a vector cross product in dimensions higher than 3D is 'What does it look like? How do we do it?'. We are all very familiar with everything to do with the three dimensional cross product and all the inter-relationships that you have already manipulated above. But then comes the question of what a seven dimensional cross product would look like. Well as you know, the embryo of the 3D cross product began with an inspiration by Sir William Rowan Hamilton in 1843 as he walked along the tow path of the Royal Canal in Dublin. He was so excited about it that he inscribed the result on the wall at Brougham Bridge. This result is the effective basis of the later result of Gibbs that,

z = x × y	x × y
i	j×k
j	k×i
k	i×j

The sine relationship then follows on.

As regards the seven dimensional cross product, the situation is more complicated because each unit vector can be the product of three distinct pairs from amongst the other 6. Here is one example of how it might look.

z = x × y	x × y
i	j×l, k×o, and n×m
j	i×l, k×m, and n×o
k	- i×o, j×m, and l×n
l	i×j, k×n, and m×o
m	i×n, j×k, and l×o
n	-i×m, k×l, and j×o
o	i×k, j×n, and l×m

However, the seven dimensional cross product does not obey either the vector triple product relationship or the Jacobi identity. But both the 3D and the 7D cross products allow the 'n'D Lagrange identity to take on the form,

$|\mathbf {a} |^{2}|\mathbf {b} |^{2}-|\mathbf {a} \cdot \mathbf {b} |^{2}=|\mathbf {a} \times \mathbf {b} |^{2}\$

The proof of this in 3D is quite straightforward and most sources are misleading in that they would tend to give the impression that this equation is uniquely the 3D version of the Lagrange identity. And with the sine relationship added, this equation then of course becomes Pythagoras's theorem.

The argument on the talk page at seven dimensional cross product was because initially I couldn't see how this equation could possibly apply in 7D. But John Blackburne finally forced me to look closer by pointing out that substitution of numbers will adequately confirm the fact. If you look at the talk page at Lagrange identity you will see how I eventually came to accept it. Like I said yesterday, in the 7D case, the right hand side is seven terms that expand into 252 terms. These 252 terms form three groups of 84, two of which are mutually cancelling. That leaves 84. The 84 contract down to 21 terms in brackets and these 21 terms make the equation work.

However, the 7D cross product cannot be related to 'sine', because it doesn't fit with the Jacobi identity. The conclusion is that Pythagoras's theorem is the 3D version of the more general 'n'D Lagrange identity.

The answer to your specific question above is that the 3D cross product, whether written in 'sine' form or not, only holds in 3D. David Tombe (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Pythagoras

Hi Bob: It looks like the editing of this page has begun to attract the WP crazies. It's time to leave. In a month or so it'll quiet down again, and if we are still motivated, we can clean up the wreckage they have left behind, like a bunch of janitors after the party has ended. Brews ohare (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)