User talk:Rbj

Gravitomagnetism

I reverted your manual move of Gravitomagnetism to Gravitoelectromagnetism. You should always use move to rename an article. As both articles already exist, a simple move is no longer possible. You must ask an administrator for assistance.

I do not oppose the renaming. The issue should however first be discussed on the talk page, or we will once again end up with a rename war, or worse yet, two duplicate articles. Petri Krohn 23:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

I see that no one has bothered to say "hello" yet, and so, the stock greeting:

Welcome!

Hello, Rbj, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

---

Next, if you need help, please turn to the talk pages associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics. I agree with you and Hillman, and 90% of the rest of the crowd here) that "gravitoelectromagnetism" is the right name. I find most of the debate quite silly, in fact. However, engaging in cut-n-paste moves is a bad idea. There are several admins who hang out at wikiproject physics, and perhaps one of them can just plain clean up the mess. linas 01:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply; I will answer here, instead of on my page. I was trying to be helpful. Several remarks:

1) Your userpage is blank, which makes it hard to get any impression of who you are. You should crete at least something that says who you are and what you do; this will help you in your various conversatins and encounters with others. People will take you more seriously when you have a user page, and even moreso if its impressive.

2) You should add your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Participants. I see by your edit history that you are active, and am surpised that we haven't met before, as we have some common interests.

3) I agree that there are a fair number of immature and/or socially mal-adept types here. These people are particularly painful when they start editing science topics about which they know damn little about, and yet feel free to argue with hte pro's. Yes, User:Nixer should be ashamed of himself, ... which brings me to the next point:

4) You can and should make appeals and ask for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. These ages are watched by hundreds, among them a variety of admins who also happen to be specialists in a wide range of physics/math fields (including grad studens and professors, or, like me, PhD's fallen by the waysides.) Wikipedia is a community, and that's the point: draw on the community and help the community. You don't need to fight the silly battles all by yourself. linas 19:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Chris Hillman

Mathematician by training, not a physicist :-/ CH 04:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back!

I hope you're time away has been relaxing and that your return may be not as stressful as your previous expriences. mennonot 23:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

we'll see. i dunno how crapped up the excommunication article is, but i haven't looked at it for 2 months. Rbj 00:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think when we stand up to Ana. it is the best way to handle her/him. After he/she started editing I stopped editing anything for almost a month and figured he/she'd have been kicked out, forgot about it by then. When I came back, I looked at how other editors handle her on the other pages and the only way to deal w. is by not letting ana. dictate. It is important that the information remain truthful, their are school children doing projects on Mennonites etc. Stettlerj 15:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Excommunication Article

Tim, i edited the Excommunication article, tried to preserve some of User:Anacapa's factual stuff while rolling back emotionally laden content. (it is still obvious to me that she's got some axe to grind.) anyway, i really think it should be pruned, but am hesitant to do more myself because any more pruning by me would be exclusively of Anacapa's influence and not mine and she might perceive that as unfair. anyway, might you look at it and do to it what you think keeps it objective without having more detail/content than is appropriate for 1/10 % of Christendom that are Anabaptists. BTW, thanks for welcoming me "back". Rbj 03:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Its good to see your back editing. I share your concern about cleaning up the Excommunication article. I think its especially helpful to add the umbrella Anabaptist section. However, I think its important to recognise that this is a sensitive section of the article on which there has been quite a number of reverts in the past two months. Although I haven't been involved in this, I see that there appears to be an open discussion on this section here: Talk:Excommunication#Suggested criteria for the Amish/Mennonite/Hutterite section. I'd suggest joining that discussion before making major changes to the article. It looks like there are a number of specific issues on the table that relate to the Anabaptist section. In a similiar situation with the Mennonite article, I found that discussing revisions before hand can save a lot of frustration and edit wars afterwards.

One other concern is the use of the edit summary field. I'm not sure how helpful it is to use these summaries to accuse another user by name. I think it might be more helpful to simply say something like "NPOVing" and explain what and why you're doing it on the talk page. Whereas if accusations are made in the edit summary the accused may feel they need to revert to save face and defend themselves in the edit summaries.

That said, thanks for your ongoing efforts to clean up articles and make them more NPOV. I think its important to have a variety of perspectives contributing. So let's do it in a way that invites everyone into the process. mennonot 22:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What is a human flea?

The article Flea states: "Some well known flea species include: [...] * Human flea (Pulex irritans), [...]". --Lambiam^Talk 18:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

A break from the mundane...

Hello, Robert. There's this crazy idea I've been toying with for a while now. I've discovered a technique/algorithm which, although already known by a few companies, is generally kept secret (thus many companies have ineffective solutions). Have any ideas on how might I "publish" my method to make it publicly known?

The technique/algorithm in question is a very simple, highly generalised method of implementing a PDC (plugin delay compensation) system for most multi-track software. So, using this method, one could implement a PDC system for Cubase which also works for group tracks (admittedly, I've been too lazy/unmotivated to do it for the particular case, but I have worked out the new FL Studio mixer entirely, which is how I ended up discovering this generalised method). Do you have any advice? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 18:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Well, I haven't written a documeu detailing the general method yet but I've written one showing how to apply the general method to Fl Studio 6. Do you have FlS6? Then you can test out the effectiveness of my methods now. Go to [www.flstudio.com its site] and work your way to the Developers Forum. Go to the thread named "A non-native PDC implementation" but don't download anything (just read). Go to the other thread (Accessing the mixer streams) and laugh at me and Didier behaving like idiots.

Then download the newer version of PDCX. It comes with a Friendly Manual and full VC++ sources. See for yourself if it works (which is a lot more than what Didier and Frederic have bothered doing). Note that the method explained in the manual is very outdated and FlS specific. I can't send you the Fl Studio document soon, but in the meantime I could write the generalised one? One thing I learnt from this is that you should not try to force people to accept charity (and Gol sucks!)... Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 08:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

i couldn't find posts by Didier (he's not the same as Gol, is he?) but have noticed on the music-dsp mailing list that i had some difficulty explaining some stuff regarding using the FFT and overlap-add to do filtering to one "Didier Dambrin" <didid@skynet.be>.

i do not use a PC for much (i have one, but don't use it much). i like my Mac. so i don't have or run FLStudio. i do not know what the issue is or what it is your plugin is trying to solve. is it regarding the well-known and loathed PC audio latency issue? i always thought that that was a interrupt priority and service problem that could only be dealt with using very low-level code techniques that PC geeks could do. is your plug about something else? i really can't understand from the context of those threads (and i did find them, i just don't know for sure what you guys are talking about). r b-j 04:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

is your issue about the misalignment that happens when a plug-in with some sprurious but known delay processes some audio on one track that that delays it relative to the other tracks? in Pro Tools, we had this problem with the Wave Mechanics (now SoundToys) Pitch Doctor. it had 89 ms of delay (so that it could really get an accurate and secure determination of the pitch) and people had to manually advance the output of that by nudging it to the left 9 times (10 ms per nudge). Digidesign had a value that we could write to that would inform them of the delay of the plug-in (assumedly to allow them to compensate for the plug-in delay when aligning tracks) but they didn't make use of it. i thought that was really dumb.

is your discussion about this? otherwise, i can't tell what the issue is. r b-j 04:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are the same person; and that is what the plugins do (non-natively, believe it or not). You put certain plugins in certain mixer tracks and tell them the latencies and routings of the mixer. The PDCX system analyses the data and decides where to put delays in order to get the system back in sync to compensate for the plugin(s) latencies. This works no matter where in the mixer the offending plugins are (but PDCX was designed for the less flexible Fl5 mixer).

What people don't seem to get for some arcane reason is that if an outside party like myself could do this non-natively using external plugins then there's no reason why Fl Studio shouldn't have a native version. Even if you don't use a PC you can still download the zip and examine the manual. It explains what PDC is and also given the (outdated) algorithm used by the system (and it's a bit easier to follow than your filter paper...). Okay, decided - I'll start writing the generalised document. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 05:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and there's no need to nudge anything either. The system applies the correct delays to the appropriate audio tracks automatically. As far as I know, Logic is the only software which (it is claimed) has a 100% complete automatic PDC system (although I hear there was a slight problem with MIDI getting out of sync with the audio). Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 06:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD's, Sinc normalized, etc

Rather than blanking the pages and taking them to AfD, the proper (easier) place is Redirects for Deletion. Fan1967 18:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey From New Hampshire

Thanks, rbj. Ditto for you too, buddy. :-) Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 21:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A distorted sense of reality

Sorry to bother you again, but I have a few very simple questions this time around. Sony Distortion, one of the crappy plugins that come with Sound Forge, has a slew-rate slider which results in a very weird sounding effect. Allegedly real solid-state distorters do this. How is it simulated? Also, is there a fast way of creating fuzz distortion in a plugin (and how does it happen in hardware)? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 23:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

of course, not being with Sony, i don't know what they're doing, but from the name, it sounds like they first apply a differentiator, then clip at a level defined by the slider, then integrate the result. just a guess. r b-j 04:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that does sort of sound like it can limit the rate of change of the sound (all those Sound Forge plugins are really terrible, btw). Thanks. And fuzz? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 07:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Zero and First Order Holds

I'm sorry, I guess I was unclear and I may have misinterpreted your intentions. What I meant was that you can do the things that you wanted to do (create separate articles with more appropriate names) without deleting the article, so there is no reason to bring the matter to AfD, which is only for discussing deletion and not the splitting off of articles. It's good to make a comment on the talk page to see if anyone objects, but you don't need anyone's permission to do it. When separate articles are created, simply redirect Zero and First Order Holds to one of them. I got the impression that you intended to use some of the article's content for creating the separate articles. In this case, the article would need to be kept to preserve attribution under the GFDL. In this situation, the best course of action would probably be to move the article to the name of the article that will receive the most content (such as zero-order hold) and proceed to rewrite it. If your intent was to delete the article without using any content from it whatsoever, then AfD would be the appropriate venue. If this is the case, let me know and I can reopen the nomination. It would probably be good to clarify this in the nomination. The article having the wrong name or being split up is irrelevant to making a case for deletion, since the article can be renamed and split up without deleting it. Sorry for the confusion. -- Kjkolb 03:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to rush you, but I'm going to be away from the computer shortly, so if you would like me to reopen the nomination, please let me know quickly. Thanks, Kjkolb 04:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm back (though I'll probably go to sleep soon). I forgot to answer all of your questions. There are standard templates (for the top and bottom) that are used to close AfD nominations, so it will say the result of the debate was this or that even if there was no debate. It is common to close a nomination immediately if it is believed to be unnecessary and for other reasons, such as an article that qualifies for speedy deletion or a bad faith nomination. I suppose that you could call my action a "speedy keep". I avoid using that term because, in my opinion, it implies bad faith on the part of the nominator. Talk to you later, Kjkolb 08:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

i guess i went to bed after leaving the note and just now am reading your response. i don't think you misinterpreted my intentions. my intention then as it is now is to delete that article because it is poorly titled, poorly written, and has technical error. it should not exist, but the accurate content that is for ZOH should go into a Zero-order hold article and the content that would be accurate for FOH should go into a First-order hold article. there is no good reason for that article to exist.

if i were to redirect it, what article shall i redirect it toward? Zero-order hold or the not yet existing First-order hold? problem is that since a more general concept is redirected toward something more specific and either ZOH or FOH will get dropped in the redirect. The article should be deleted. it was poorly conceived in the first place. no article refers to it. deleting it will be the best way to keep the quality of WP up. r b-j 21:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

So you are going to use some content from the article? That means that it cannot be deleted. If separate articles were written from scratch, it could go to AfD, but not if any content from the article is used. It must be kept as a redirect to preserve attribution in the history under the GDFL. Some redirects are made so that content can be more easily found, but some are made to preserve attribution. It doesn't matter if the redirect is useless for people looking for an article. The page should redirect to the article that got the most content from it, even if the redirect is illogical. However, any links to the old article will have to be changed so that the redirect is not used to direct them to the wrong article. -- Kjkolb 01:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

i probably will not use any content from that article (User:Petr.adamek is helping me by making simpler and very clear drawings for illustration so even the one drawing i thought i might use will not be necessary). but even if i were to move or duplicate some content, what difference does that make. this is like someone creating an article William and Hillary Clinton (i am assuming that will be a red link, it really should be if it isn't) and doing a biography of both of these persons in one article. they both should get their own article and have links to the other.

there is enough bad writing in that article and enough technical error, that i would just blank the damn thing (because it is not helpful regarding the transmission of knowledge which is what we are here for) but am afraid that someone will take it the wrong way and some admin might block me. r b-j 02:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I put a disputed tag on it for now, so hopefully people won't be misled before it is deleted. I'll renominate it for deletion. If you do end up using any of the content, let me know or post a comment on the nomination and the article will be redirected to preserve attribution. Thanks, Kjkolb 02:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

i moved the tag to a {{sectfact}} tag for the FOH section. as indicated in the talk page, i might have come upon some obscure source that supports the given definition for FOH, but it should be called predictive FOH. i'll investigate this and, if there is some meat in it, i'll include a section for in in the new First-order hold, when i can get the drawings. forgot to mention to you, Kjkolb: thanks for your attention to this. i think one way or another, we'll get this right. r b-j 17:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

How to purge

Sorry I was a bit brief. I will describe how to purge the server's cache below. You may have to do it many times to get the images to display, and be patient because it won't always work immediately.

How to purge:

1. Go to the image page
2. Click on the "History" tab
3. The url in your browser will now end in &action=history. Change that to &action=purge and hit enter. This will purge the image.

Example: Image:Firstorderhold.signal.png

1. Go to Image:Firstorderhold.signal.png
2. Click on the History tab
3. Change the url to this and hit enter

About the Commons, it is not essential, but if you wanted to upload there in the future you just create an account there, and click "Upload file" on the left (from their Main Page).--Commander Keane 23:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No bother at all, I have deleted the ones you asked me to. Thanks for taking the time to re-name/upload to Commons :-) --Commander Keane 02:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Exploding Boy and Homophobia

Rbj - All I can say is that with exploding boy, all I can give is a long, slow shake of the head. He doesn't appear to be very reasonable or academically inclined, so I sort of gave up, and removed any public links I had made to the wiki article. I think it remains unfortunately biased (and therefore not very useful -though there is a lot of good information in there), and exploding boy doesn't seem to get either that a dictionary is not the finite end of knowledge, nor that his attempt to define religious objection to homosexuality implicitly as homophobia is simply not valid. Some of it is no doubt, but some of it is principled objection based on Biblical authority and natural law theory and so on and so forth. Not that I personally agree with those objections (I prefer John Boswell's re-evaluations), but rather I think there are other issues here. I'll be interested to see how this comes down. Do drop me a note if there are developments.

Cor Unum 10:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

in regards to the comment you left on my user talk page, I would be glad to help out by standing up against exploding boy, and taking away the bias of the article. --Piemanmoo 01:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back

Nice to see you again. Alain Riazuelo 22:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

nice to see you, too. i thought i was leaving for good when what i needed was a wikibreak and to see a little justice (3 of the 4 editors of which 2 were admins that were really jerking me around last December are now gone or desysopped). i've made a reference to your journey throught the Bogdanov universe on the Physics Forums site recently. looks like Igor is occasionally still trying to change the article. i hope that the experts can maintain that page without needed sympathetic bodies to come there and help lift. BTW, John Baez came by the Planck units page (where i did a lot of contributing) and said that, although it's a matter of taste (which units are the most natural) he approved of the article in the state it was in. i still think that units that normalize $c$, $\hbar$, $4\pi G$, and $\epsilon _{0}$ are the most natural (on the basis of what happens to field equations as a result). r b-j 22:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. abakharev 07:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

i dunno what you are talking (or writing) about. if it is about the homophobia article, [1] was not a revert and [2] was not a revert but was editing text in a contentious environment.

[3] was a simple content addition (which EB simply hated but which i can prove was reducing POV in the article) and there were 3 reverts where i stopped and EB didn't, even after i warned him that his next revert would violate 3RR and he took up the challenge and i responded, not by reverting him (which would have been my 4th revert) but by reporting him.

please read Talk:Homophobia to understand what this is about before jumping to conclusions. this whole issue centers around a very simple dispute about content and NPOV of which i am also very confident of what I and 4 other (recent) editors have been trying to do. please check your facts before letting this immature little POV pusher, who thinks he owns the article and who got caught violating 3RR and is now having a little tantrum, lead you astray. check your facts, check the talk page, and check the history. i violated no 3RR regarding homophobia. r b-j 15:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, you obviously read [[WP:AN/3RR#User:Rbj reported by Exploding Boy 20:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC) (Result:Warning}]] as well as the WP:3RR policy itself. The whole point of the warning is to make you aware of the policy for the future references. Excessive edit warring is counterproductive. Try to find a compromise yourself. If you feel you are right - argue your case on the talk page instead of reverting and somebody would support your version or find a compromise. If you feel the article attracted a wrong type of editors, who are unable to appreciate your arguments, try to start WP:RfC. If there is a vandalism there try to attract attention of an admin. These methods work, excessive reverting does not.

On the Homophobia you four time inserted the word pejorative or its deviations, despite a strong opposition from the other editors. If you were properly warned it could lead to your blocking (it is unproductive now to say if it would be fair or not), please do not risk it again. abakharev 22:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

not in a 24 hour period did i insert the word: perjorative 4 times (unless you count the original content change as one time, in that case, you are correct, but i reverted only 3 times). one of those latter edits, the nasty word "perjorative" existed in the version i was editing and in the version that was a result of the edit, so i didn't insert it there. if you look at the edit history, i have done little editing to the actual article after the little war with Exploder, but a lot of editing to the Talk page, explaining again and again precisely why the word "perjorative" makes the article less POV in the context we were trying to have it. also, it is a falsehood that there was strong opposition from the other editors (such as User:Njamesdebien, User:Mangoe who have been trying to get this fixed for weeks). it is really only User:Exploding Boy who was unwilling to any compromise: he insisted that "Opposition to same-sex activism on religious, moral, or political grounds may also be referred to as homophobia." without any qualification (which is saying that this reference is normative) and all i tried to do was insert one word so that it would be more accurate and less POV: "Opposition to same-sex activism on religious, moral, or political grounds may also be perjoratively referred to as homophobia." where is there the compromise? also, given the definition of the word, which statement is more accurate? r b-j 22:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi again...

Sorry to bother you, again again, but could you perhaps take a look at the PDF attached to this and tell me what you think of it (any style mistakes, whether it's clear enough, if you're convinced by it, if the Mathematics is a tad too difficult for some people, how embarrassed I should be by it...)? I hope you don't mind me using your name in the acknowledgements. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 20:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

See what I said about needing to feel embarrassed? Where did I get the idea your name was Richard!? It would've been wonderful if the people from the archive had actually told me this before putting the PDF up... Okay, I think I can quickly change it and resubmit. Thanks for your time - this is the reason why I mentioned "your" name. Yes, please, do take your time; I realise that perhaps the method is not really as intuitive as I said it was (but it seems obvious in retrospect, like almost everything else). I probably shouldn't have used so many passive verbs, but I feel that "we" is wrong since there's only one of me and "I" is inappropriate (although I have seen a doctorate thesis on quantum programming use the first person singular extensively), but you can tell me about all that later when you're done. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 08:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Linearising an IIR filter through cascading

An intelligent heading, for a change. I've been wondering if it might be possible to construct a linear phase 4-pole/zero IIR filter through this process:

a. make a biquad filter (perhaps using your cookbook)

b. construct an allpass filter with the exact same response as the filter

c. invert the phase response of the allpass filter (swap poles and zeros?)

d. cascade the filters.

Is there something I'm missing here (perhaps step b is impossible)? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 18:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

step b is the design process. but you can show that the group delay of an analog (s-plane) all-pass filter is twice the natural log of the magnitude frequency response of just the poles (there's a scaling in there, but i cannot remember what it is). making an analog filter fit something exactly usually is impossible. also true for a digital filter. at least for the general case. r b-j 00:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, just as I had thought. Thanks, then. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 07:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks! --mboverload@ 22:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Nyquist et al

Hi. Tried to give good reasons on the talk page. Can you be more specific about where I started to mess things up? --KYN 22:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

i presume you mean this rv [4] . i'll take it to the talk page. r b-j 16:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

R, how about engaging in the discussion you've proposed. Calling me a dumptruck falls short of constructive feedback. Dicklyon 05:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Your action of reporting me is probably not an effective conversation starter, but I've added some review of my proposed edits, inviting your comments on specific edits instead of less-constructive type responses. Please? Dicklyon 06:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I see you've decided to invest your limited wiki time in trying to get me suspended, instead of engaging in the discussion that you claimed you wanted to have. In the mean time, we've been working on Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem, and I think it's coming along fairly well. Still too long, but some progress being made. Dicklyon 23:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, welcome back. But read the talk on the article you're working on. Your silence is deafening. Dicklyon 06:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks For The Plug

Hey, thanks for the plug on NPR. It gave me a good opportunity to send an e-mail not only clarifying the situation, but also establishing myself as an first hand expert of the unfortunate social structure of Wikipedia.

what are you talking about?

And to think, none of that would have happened if you didn't get in an edit war over some Catholic phrase back in December.

if you're referring the excuse User:Phroziac used to block me, it was because i reverted User:Rchamberlin's page blanking (of my notes to him) which i (correctly) interpreted as him writing me or the concerns i brought off. i noticed you and her are good friends now (she's still an admin and still very immature) and that User:Locke Cole and User:Mistress_whomever have left WP (because of their abuse). no one left on your side of that RfC against me you and Phro instigated. all of you have been discredited (as i said, you and Phro underestimated my legitimacy here). (it's funny, LC said that i had no right to have my usertalk page deleted and i cited the right-to-vanish principle which he used later to have his usertalk page deleted.) BTW, your citing of the fruitlessness of complaining ("whining") to Jimbo was also incorrect. eventually his threshold of seeing your username pop up was crossed. i had about a half dozen email exchanges with him and after that was resolved, i returned to WP. that explains the gap in my user contribs sometime around March. r b-j 21:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Really, i've also had about half a dozen e-mails with him as well, although not so pleasant, dealing with mostly with my rage towards the lack of structure that have hurt people in similiar situations as yours(excluding the rudeness) such as NSLE, SPUI, and many others, including Locke Cole, who I was good friends with and defended against a troll named Pigsonthewing.

Phro's in the cabal, so we're pretty much rivals on here now, unfortunately. Oh well, que sera. And it's funny you mention that meta page since it would seem to conflict with GFDL.

All is going well with me, I hope the same with you.

still "... the leader of the Democratic Party in Merrimack ..."? did i tell you that i introduced Howard Dean to a town hall meeting in Wentworth the week of the NH Primary (i think it was Jan 24th 2004)? i hope you learn how to wield power when you have it so you do some good and not piss off so many people that you lose it.

No kidding, Dean has certainly done that down in Washington lately(well, more doing nothing than doing anything bad). Absolute power corrupts absolutely, despite good intentions.

Dean has, unfortunately, become somewhat of a party hack. his "i hate republicans" or whatever similar statement he made was not helpful (as some other sorta shrill statements), but essentially nearly everything he has said in the campaign was completely true (Iraq, etc.). if the media would pay attention, Dean (shrill or not) would be nearly 100% vindicated. nearly everything he said about what W was doing (and the dems lack of conviction to stand up to it) was true and had been verified in the intervening time. r b-j 21:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S- I have a few sockpuppets now, a few approaching becoming admins themselves. Hopefully I can use them to learn from my and your mistakes to create a Wikipedia with some habeas corpus; nobody should have the unlimited, unchecked power over such a widely accessed source of information that Jimbo and his admins have.

... which you were one of (and was unchecked and abusive long enough that you hurt the project). perhaps your other admin incarnations will be better behaved. r b-j 21:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

yes I was, and hopefully all users, regular and admin, can be empowered, hopefully avoiding the feeling of powerlessness that probably caused your poor behavior.

what "poor behavior"?? yours and Phro's RfC was discredited. it's your poor behavior. r b-j 21:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Stay out of trouble. ;-)

Your friendly neighborhood toxic personality, still around...

Karmafist 21:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Baseband

Hi Rbj. Yeah, Baseband was a bit of a nightmare before I did something about it. You're of course welcome to upload a more colourful image (although generally, I find that if the colour is key to explaining something then the explanation isn't good enough). But baseband signals begin at 0 Hz under any common definition, so no, there are no negative frequencies. The baseband bandwidth is half the RF bandwidth (and vice versa) as the article says, and that would make no sense (i.e. be impossible) if the negative-going spectral components were also present at baseband. CERN's definition here concurs, as does a knowledgeable sounding article here. Now I know more about Wikpedia then when I wrote Baseband, I see that those links ought probably to be added to the article. I'll find the time later today. Thanks, Splash - tk 13:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

PNG images in TeX

Hi Rbj. Note that per the math style manual it is good if possible to avoid inline formulas become PNG images. So a formula better be typed <math>f </math> than <math>f \ </math>. I fixed that at Euler's formula. You can reply here if you have comments. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

yeah, that really is a question whether it looks better rendered PNG than not. there are other articles where i bumped up the inline $math\$ to force PNG rendering. there is not universal agreement which looks better. r b-j 02:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the rule of thumb is that PNG images have a larger size than inline html, and that's why inline html is preferd. On my current machine that is indeed the case, and the $math\$ thing not only is huge but also pushed down half a line, you can imagine how ugly that looks.

But I am aware that on other machines PNG looks fine (if the PNG resolution makes pictures appear same size as text). Anyways, I just told you the math style guideline. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Dimensionless quantities

You said:

"just as when one counts tick marks (a dimensionless number) on a ruler when they measure length, when we use any measuring instrument to read a physical quantity it was designed for results in a fundamentally dimensionless number. it's in the interpretation of that reading and knowledge of what it uses as a standard to measure the physical quantity, that we attach units to the reading."

That's all fine and good, but you can use the same logic to show that everything in the universe is unitless. Ed Sanville 07:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement that everything is unitless when you use Planck units, or atomic units, etc. You are simply using a different set of units in each case. The fact that there are different "sets" of unitless systems is testament to the fact that they do in fact have units, and that you need to use those units to convert between the different "unitless" systems. Being a computational chemist, I use the atomic units quite a bit, by the way... but claiming that they're "unitless" just ain't right! Certain quantities really are unitless, though, and there is a big difference between Planck units and those situations. Quantities that are truly unitless are always the same quantity, no matter what unit system is being used, which does not apply to anything measurable in Planck units or atomic units. An example of a truly unitless quantity would be the proton/electron mass ratio. I hope this didn't come off as rude or arrogant, I only wanted to italicize important stressed words.

PS. I copied it here so you'd get that "You have messages" thing. Ed Sanville 15:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Rbj, I agree with Ed and I think you changed back for worse the article of Physical constant. Please read Talk:Physical_constant#Removed_paragraph for a more detailed explanation. Please think about it and let me know your conclusions. --Kehrli 10:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I should make you aware of comments by arbitrators on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Kehrli/Proposed_decision. The good news is that I have done 90+% of the work for you to get this subject delt with quickly. The bad news is that you need to make the arbitration comittee aware of your grievences directly. I would advise you to waste as little time as possible on this issue and by that I mean give your input forcefully and vocally and then disengage from any conflict and move on. Babysit the outcome (watch all arbitration pages and affected pages) but don't waste time with arguing, reverting etc. The pages can always be reverted later. Just trying to save you from my headache. --Nick Y. 01:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

physical quantities

Hi Rbj, maybe we should take this discussion off-line. Look, I really don't want to be rude or trolling or anything. However, there seems to be some misunderstanding going on and maybe it is just different terminology. In my (and ISO 31) terminology, a quantity Q is defined as Q = n*U where n is a numerical factor and U is a reference (unit). The "value of Q" in my terminology is n*U. Example: if Q is the "height of the Eiffel tower" then the value of Q (this height) is 300 m. It seems to me that for you the "value of Q" is just n. So the height of the Eiffel tower is 300. In ISO 31 terminology, h = 300m = 900ft. In your terminology h = 300 < 900. While I do know that in theoretical physics it is very common to declare (or assume) that natural units are used and then to go on and ignore all units, in the rest of the world this is very uncommon and also not in line with the IUPAP red book, the ISO 31 and therefore should be considered jargon. Droping the units may be handy in theoretical physics but it has certain dangers which are illustrated in our discussion. Well defined terms become fuzzy and misunderstandings occurr. Some examples:

1) when dropping units, a dimensionful quantity Q=n*U suddenly looks like Q=n (a unitless quantity). Thereby this Q now seems to depend on the system of units which of course is not the case if the units are not dropped (Q = n*U). See example above.

2) when "normalizing" (NIST-)fundamental constants these constants become Q=1*U. When dropping units, they look like Q=1 and therefore people get the impression they "eliminated" the constants, which is not true since the constants still have their imensions and units and therefore cannot be eliminated. Dimensional analysis is no longer possible if those constants are "eliminated". In my opinion the term "elimination of constants" is physics jargon and should not be on Wikipedia. It will completely confuse people that are trying to get advice on Wikipedia.

For those reasons I suggest that for the moment we do not drop units, we keep to the terminology of the IUPAP and the ISO 31 (which you find in the IUPAC green book). This way we will talk the same language. Note: this does not keep us from using natural units. It just means that we keep their units. --Kehrli 09:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Rbj, I just had a quick discussion with Ed and he made me realyze that indeed many physicists may consider n as the "value" of Q=n*U in which case the "value of Q" will depend on the units used. However, the conventional terminology is that n*U is the value of Q. For example the IUPAC green book states in Chapter 1.1:

The value of a physical quantity can be expressed as the product of a numerical value and a unit: physical quantity = numerical value x unit.

So I hope you agree that this makes it clear that the product n*U is the value of Q and not n, and that all our dispute was only a matter of different terminology. --Kehrli 12:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

this is a content dispute. unlike the MS, which appears to me to be a dispute of convention, this is a substantive content dispute, neither of us are wanting to dicreetly ask the other for clarification. both are confident of the correctness of each respective position. the discussion of the content of an article should be on that article's talk page and every editor with an interest or investment gets to participate, input other perspectives, and decide what is their own position. if it comes down to it editors vote if no rough consensus is reached. so i'm taking it from there. but i'm not rehashing every point. i have a life outside WP and the internet and i don't have the time.r b-j 21:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Reminder

You're approaching WP:3RR at Fine-tuned universe. FeloniousMonk 02:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you realize you're on your 4th rv there? You can backout your last rv and I won't report it. FeloniousMonk 03:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

please report it if you like. we have a content dispute, you have made far more edits, including reversions than me (in fact, my original content change does not count as a reversion) and, despite your assurances, i am not as confident of you assurance that you are not making use of your admin status to gain an edge in a content dispute.

you failed to make your case that the word "remarkable" editorializes a position that, itself, is somewhat controversial. the whole reason that such a topic of fine-tuned universe exists is that some people found it to be remarkable that all of those fundamental physical constants have the values they have (as well as other properties of the universe such as the non-homogeneous clumping of matter at or after the big bang).

this is a content dispute that i would like as much sunshine as possible to illuminate. it's sorta like User:Exploding Boy objecting to the use of the word "pejorative" to describe the word homophobia. he was wrong for about the same reason you are. r b-j 03:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that's how you feel about this; and we were getting along so well on my talk page. But if that's how you want to play it, fine. I'm not karmafist, BTW. FeloniousMonk 03:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

i know you're not Karmafist (no one can be that bad). but you are using your status as an admin to gain an advantage in a content dispute. and when you turn it into blocking a conscientious wikipedian, that is admin abuse. r b-j 03:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You blatantly violated 3RR. And you can't say I didn't warn you or give you a chance to avoid the consequences. I'm hardly the bad guy for insisting you play by the same rules as the rest of us. But if it makes you feel better to think of me that way, go ahead. FeloniousMonk 04:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No form of admin abuse occured. FM said he would report you- which he did. He used no admin tools, made no threat of using admin tools or anything else. Blaming other users for your policy violations is unhelpful and unproductive. Furthermore, generic threats about desysoping where the admin in question hasn't even used an admin action could be construed as uncivil. JoshuaZ 04:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

--Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, you need to count how many edits are content changes and how many are reverts

i knew all along that Felonious is an admin, but his position in deleting accurate (and referenced) material was not justified and i knew it. there were lots of edits done by both of us (many more by Felonious and i'll bet you didn't block him, did you?), i made one initial content change and 3 reverts. you are shooting and asking questions afterward. please do not reinforce the WP legend of a cabal. r b-j 03:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN/3RR#User:Rbj_reported_by_User:FeloniousMonk_.28Result:24h.29 . It shows you made one content change, and four reverts. I check carefully before 3RR blocks. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've now blocked you for 48 hours for evading your original block and reverting yet again. Please wait out the time, and use the Talk: page when you return. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

what are you talking about? r b-j 19:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, i'm at IP 207.190.198.135 . the ARIN WHOIS database says it's

   CTC Communications Corp. CTC-ICN-2 (NET-207-190-192-0-1) 
                                 207.190.192.0 - 207.190.255.255
   Young Chang R & D Institute CTC-YOUNG-CHANG (NET-207-190-198-128-1) 
                                 207.190.198.128 - 207.190.198.191

which is accurate. what evidence do you believe puts me evading the block? please check carefully. r b-j 19:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

upon investigation at Talk:Fine-tuned universe, if Felonious is representing you accurately, you are claiming that IP 76.19.168.52 which is

   Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. WESTERN-1 (NET-76-16-0-0-1) 
                                 76.16.0.0 - 76.23.255.255
   Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. BOSTON-2 (NET-76-19-0-0-1) 
                                 76.19.0.0 - 76.19.255.255

is me. that is in error. i guess i'll have to write Jimbo about this since i can't post to his talk page. Felonious (and you, it appears) are mistaken. r b-j 19:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Homophobia

Thanks for the 3RR warning: appreciated. Of course, you are also at the 3RR limit for Homophobia for the next 24 hours, as is CC80. It will doubtless do us all good to leave it be for a day. Yonmei 00:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

RBJ -- Thanks for your efforts to make this article NPOV. I have been watching from the sidelines for now. I am not sure if I want to be a passenger on the revert train, but I will definitely be watching for opportunities to contribute positively to the quality of this article. Peace, MPS 04:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks. i'm glad you noticed. i've been feeling i must be somewhere in the groove if i'm fighting off stuff from both sides. one side wants to define as normative the use of "homophobia" to label political opposition to some agenda or another (gay marriage, etc.), the other side wants it not be be normative for any use, no matter how disparaging they might be to gays. there are plenty of homophobes about, but not solely because they don't support some LGBT political goal. r b-j 05:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Electrical current

Hi RBJ. You're an electrical engineer and maybe you could help me with this little problem. If we regard the Bohr orbit as an electrical current, is that current defined by e/t (where e is elementary charge and t is Bohr radius/speed of electron? Or should it be 2Pi x Bohr radius?) I suspect the stuff in the basement should be the product of t and the square root of 2 but I can't find a site that defines the matter clearly (which suggests it could be a non-issue). In this case I cheerfully defer to your superior knowledge. I hope this is not an intrusion on your personal page. Lucretius 01:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

i guess it could be a current. you need to determine the time it takes for one revolution. if i am not mistaken, the original definition of the fine-structure constant is the ratio of the electron speed of the first orbit of the Bohr atom to to the speed of light.

so the expression for α is

$\alpha ={\frac {e^{2}}{4\pi \epsilon _{0}\hbar c}}$

so the speed of the electron is

$\alpha c={\frac {e^{2}}{4\pi \epsilon _{0}\hbar }}$

the Bohr radius is

$a_{0}={\frac {4\pi \epsilon _{0}\hbar ^{2}}{m_{e}e^{2}}}={\frac {\hbar }{m_{e}c\alpha }}$

assuming circular orbit the path length and time of one revolution is

$2\pi a_{0}/(\alpha c)={\frac {2\pi \hbar }{m_{e}c^{2}\alpha ^{2}}}$

if you check the dimension, is this quantity a time? (it had better be.)

so the current you mean is

${\frac {e}{2\pi a_{0}/(\alpha c)}}={\frac {em_{e}c^{2}\alpha ^{2}}{2\pi \hbar }}$

dunno if this is physically meaningful or not. one thing, i would think that a magnetic moment (assuming the Bohr model was accurate, which it isn't) of that circular current would be meaningful. i have to look up what if a single electron going round-and-round a proton, what kind of magnetic field would come up. see if this helps. r b-j 04:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks RBJ. Yes, the dimension is definitely time (length divided by length/time puts time in the attic all on its own). I'm also wondering how the proton's 'electrical current' would impact on the scenario, and how the magnetic fields of both electron and proton would contribute. Conventionally the Bohr atom is considered 'simplistic', but it looks dauntingly complex to me once the nitty gritty of electrical circuits is taken into account. Again thanks for your advice.Lucretius 08:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

yer welcome, FWIW. if the Bohr model were true, a Hydrogen atom would simply radiate a circularly polarized wave from out of the two ends of the axis of revolution and that doesn't happen, which was another prompting for the quantum mechanical model. L8r, r b-j 04:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome

It wasn't actually me it was Slowking Man (I simply tagged it) however I have passed your thanks on :) Have a great day Glen 14:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Pacifism

Look, I have no malintent implied in my edits. You can see that through the edits I did this morning, changing the text as I read more sources. You can also recall that I reverted Ex-Nin-Employee when he first added his content about a month back, asking for non-polemical sources. But what is User:Mombas is implying on the talk page that I am trying to put down Jesus because of my own religion is in no way correct, and is definitely not appropriate. I was wondering if you could step in in that regard, and not allow it to become uncivil. Regards, -- Jeff3000 02:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

i don't recall accusing you of malintent at all. i don't think you're trying to put down Jesus. i think you're okay, Jeff.

i think that the whole portion of the article should be written as if none of us are religious persons of any persuasion and just concentrate on the historical record as it exists. in my opinion, the so-called "POV" sentence of mine was simply a restatement of the main point of the historical record regarding Jesus. nothing about Jesus' divinity, nothing about Jesus being the God of the OT, just that he preached loving one's enemies and did so himself even when it was clear that his enemies were intent on torturing him to death. but you removed it as POV and i fail to see it. but i didn't oppose it since the state of the article was far better than what Nintendo was doing to it. it's midnight here in the east and i'm tired. i'll look at this tomorrow. r b-j 04:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, -- Jeff3000 23:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Homophobia: Yonmei

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

Yonmei, when you use a template, you're supposed to fill in the blanks. {{#if:{{{1|}}}|With regards to your comments on [[:{{{1}}}]]: }} didn't make it. would you be so kind to point out where i was attacking you personally and not the quality of your argument? r b-j 16:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice about using templates.

Quoting your personal attack from the Talk: Homophobia page:

there is just no lifting the blinds on Yonmei. Yonmei gets to define what it means to be homophobic. Yonmei gets to canonize his/her definition of "homophobic" in a world-wide public resource such as Wikipedia. Yonmei gets to exclude any dissenting opinion of that definition when presenting it in this world-wide public resource. and Yonmei sees absolutely no problem with that and naturally cannot understand why someone opposes it. (actually Yonmei does understand, people oppose it because they are homophobic. don't believe it? check the definition.)r b-j 00:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks in future. Thank you.Yonmei 18:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

it's the quality of your argument i was attacking, Yonmei. and i stand by that "attack". and, by unilaterally labeling it as a "personal attack" (just like you unilaterally label an opposing argument as "homophobic"), you are again trying to avoid taking up the arguments presented therein and are continuing to present the same failed, circular, and self-convenient argument as a reason for characterizing an opposing POV as "homophobic" therefore it does not deserve to be presented in the article and dismissed outright. it's transparent. you're not fooling anyone. r b-j 20:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have consistently said that I think that the POV of the group(s) who believe that:

their "moral disapproval of homosexuality" ought not to be described as homophobia

ought to appear in the Homophobia article - but it shouldn't be given primacy in the introductory 'graphs. It's just one POV.

I have also said that I think the fact that labelling persons or beliefs as homophobic is controversial ought to appear in the introductory 'graphs, just as it does in the Racism article.

So your claim that I think such beliefs "do not deserve to be presented in the article and dismissed outright" is completely false. I have argued for no such thing. I have simply argued that such beliefs do not belong in the introductory 'graphs.

but you believe that your POV, the one that extends the definition beyond the dictionary, should be in the introductory paragraphs, and evidently, without any balance in the intro from the POV that some of these people you label "homophobic" do not accept the label. r b-j 12:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of deliberate misrepresentation, as I believe the Talk page got complex very fast - one reason why I think we should now give the argument a rest and wait for Mediation. But you have just completely misrepsented my point, and I would ask you to go back, re-read the Talk page without responding, and respond when we get Mediation to what I am actually arguing for - a neutral POV in the introductory 'graphs, not a POV that assumes homosexuality is somehow worthy of disapproval and that the POV expressing that disapproval belongs in the introduction, rather than further down in its own section. Yonmei 08:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

And, slightly OT: were you aware that an anonymous editor (71.161.208.161 has been editing your Talk page? Yonmei 00:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

odd. i looked at the history and i cannot find a single edit by 71.161.208.161. i see you lect a note for him/her at User talk:71.161.208.161. i don't get any of this. (?) r b-j 12:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I was talking about... sorry for confusion. Yonmei 13:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

R-B-J: Please stop. Please, please stop. Your personal attacks on me (and lengthy personal anecdotes about yourself) are just adding a further level confusion to an already impossibly complicated Talk page. If you want to make the argument that a person can oppose equal civil rights for LGBT people for non-homophobic reasons, then for the Flying Spaghetti Monster's sake, make that argument: cite sources of people opposing equal civil rights for LGBT people and giving reasons that you consider to be not-homophobic. But stop attacking me for saying things you disagree with. Of course I may disagree with you that these reasons are not-homophobic, and I will cite sources (I agree with DanBDan that we should stick to academic sources, by the way) for thinking so. But if you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Homophobia, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Yonmei 08:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Re-posting comment from Talk page, in response to the comment by you posted at 20:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC):

Why are you engaging in games rather than discussion, r b-j? If your sole objective was to "set me up", and you have no intention of answering a repeated and serious question with direct bearing on the subject under discussion, it makes it look rather as if you are engaging in personal attack and not in trying to improve the Homophobia page. Please stop it: it's disruptive and annoying.

Please do not make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Homophobia. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Yonmei 21:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Your question on my talk page

Hi R b-j. I've replied to your question on my talk page at Talk:Analytic signal. Paul August ☎ 17:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Homophobia

Now I'm confused as to where you disagreed with me at all, Rbj.

maybe in the section normative use of "homophobic". but Caveat, i think it is clear that the edits (and the justification of those edits) that i was taking on was mainly taking on were those of Yonmei's. you just can't go to Communism and identify hippies or Bernie Sanders (a local Vermont politician i guarantee you'll hear about soon) or other lefties as communists, even if it is commonly done. perhaps if it was a common but collquial use of the word, but you have to then qualify that. otherwise, if it goes into the article Communism that Bernie Sanders is a communist and such mention is unqualified in that article, some people might read it and take it seriously and then, because of the widely read, public, and ostensibly NPOV resource Wikipedia is believed to be, the de facto definition of communism gets bumped over a little bit so as to include Bernie Sanders. that was the line that i was holding, regarding Homophobia. perhaps i should have taken on Mangoe earlier about any attempt to inject a moral evalution in there as a means to sheild persons who disapprove of homosexuality from the label, but instead, as of late, every time i edited it, i meant to take out the disclaimer regarding disapprovers but emphatically kept the disclaimer regarding simple political opposition to some particular political effort of the LGBT movement. even though it's "convenient" to me that it was my pruned and compromise version of the intro that was frozen, i still can't, for the life of me see the POV.

Perhaps miscommunication? (Perhaps influenced by my emotions around this topic? For that I apologize). I agree with you on ALL points in your last post. My only issue is placing the protestations to common usage specifically in the introduction, and how many of the users, it seems, want to case 'being gay' as a 'POV' within the article.

of course being gay is a POV. but it doesn't mean that gays can't edit an article about any given topic regarding homosexuality. and it doesn't mean that gays are incapable of editing with NPOV.

I just don't want the 'critics' of homosexuality (whom I still feel are homophobes, but it IS a subjective word) to be given undue weight in this article. CaveatLector^Talk 18:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

well, i dunno if the parallel with racism made any sense to you, but i ougta be able to disagree with and actively oppose some political efforts of some particular group whose ostensible purpose is that of racial equality without being labeled a racist. (and a good example is the effort made within the last decade for the U.S. government to pay compensation to descendents of slaves because of all of the uncompensated labor of slaves 140+ years ago.) if they do label me a "racist" on their web site for such opposition, there is nothing i can do about it. if it is reported as such in a newspaper, i get to write a letter refuting such and they should print it, but if they don't, i have to accept that "freedom of the press belongs to those who own one." but Wikipedia has granted me access and purports to be NPOV. if some organization ostensibly working for racial justice claims in WP that political opponents of reparations and compensation for slavery are racist, i would fight that just as hard as this. r b-j 20:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding 24.80.106.240

Well...I have some evidence both ways. 24.80.106.240 belongs to somebody in Canada, and Supercraft99 is, in fact, located in Canada. However, the IP is from Alberta whereas Supercraft99 is from British Columbia (according to his userpage). I don't really like impersonators, but perhaps I should have left this alone? What do you think? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 01:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well...for now I'll stay away from that article then. I don't really like getting involved in disputes, especially when the dispute is about something I'm not too familiar with. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 02:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

sources for marriage

You would have to source it for each country. US is easy. [5] [6]. The question is how you define for the english speaking world... most likely use a dictionary.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) mar‧riage  /ˈmærɪdʒ/ –noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

This worked as a NPOV source for homophobia definition... MPS 19:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This Wikipedia template seems to list an updated summary of which nations condone same-sex marriage. As with anything at Wikipedia, it's anyone's guess whether it's accurate or not.

The article: Status_of_same-sex_marriage covers the issue, and may have some useful references or links.

CC80 12:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

3 RR on Marriage

Rbj, Just letting you know I've reported your 3RR violation on the admin 3RR board. --Siobhan Hansa 18:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

3RR

I should note we're both on 3 reverts. Can we discuss this on the talk page? Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[7] made on November 20 2006 to Marriage

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 19:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed your autoblock, you should be OK now. Edit here if not... William M. Connolley 23:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Marriage break and WP:NOTLEX

I think I put a little too much snark in my coffee today. I am going to back off from Talk:marriage for a bit, but feel free to weigh in. Also, please edit WP:NOTLEX, my newest contribution to wikipedia:essays. MPS 17:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

inline vs. "displayed" TeX, \cdots, \vdots

At Euler's formula you wrote $g(x)\$ instead of g(x). On Wikipedia, TeX looks very good when "displayed", but often very bad when inline. For example, $e^{\int 1\,dx}$ gets misaligned, and on many browsers inline TeX looks comically gigantic.

Also, could you write

$a+b+c+\cdots \,$

instead of

$a+b+c+...\,$

and

$a,b,c,\dots \,$

instead of

$a,b,c,...\,$ ?

Michael Hardy 04:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

i fixed the other section of the inline TeX. lemme know what else might be overlooked. r b-j 04:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your encouragement. I am concerned that the article tends to veer away from NPOV. I understand of course that on such a subject, it needs a lot of discussion to work out these POV issues. I take your point, thanks. I was more concerned about the term Roman church. I've no problem with Roman Catholic church (although it makes as little sense as referring to Russia as the Petrograd Russian Federation or the USA as the Washington United States of America). But the term Roman church refers only to the church community in Rome. It is often used by non-Catholics to refer the Roman Catholic Church, but usually in a derogatory sense. Thanks for droppin' by! Hope you're enjoyin' the Wikipedia experience. You've made some pretty smart contributions.--Gazzster 08:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Euler's formula

Hello again. I have concluded that this edit of yours is a mistake. The function g(x) was defined as e^ix, and the problem was to prove that's equal to cos(x) + i sin(x). But the cis function was defined as cos(x) + i sin(x). It was not known in advance of the proof to be the same as g(x). Rather, that is what was to be proved. I've just done some further edits restoring the "cis" notation to that subsection. Michael Hardy 20:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

saints

Thanks for the applause on the Jimbo pic. :) As for unsigned comments, I think it's too unrealistic for anons, especially primary sources, to know the intricacies of Wikipedia format and convention. Expecting someone to learn all that just to comment, especially on their own work, is too high a bar for a casual visitor. And it's better for them to air their concern on Talk pages than it is for them to have to bug the Foundation, or worse. Besides, what would an IP prove? Most non-technical primaries probably use a dynamic IP from a large provider. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Article: Marriage

Thanks for your compliment. Are the major edits you are skeptical about the move of information related to 'same sex marriage' to the renamed section 'Redefinition of Marriage'? Take a look at marriage, marriage (traditional), and traditional marriage. Nkras 00:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

And if the Arbitrators and Mediators are post-modernists? :-( Nkras 03:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

dunno. we'll see. r b-j 04:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I added "Wikipedia should erase and lock the article for all time, and both sides will go their respective ways to their respective Articles." Nkras 04:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This is what just happened:

Coelacan, who the hell do you think you are, requesting deletion of Traditional Marriage without having the decency to notify me on Talk:Marriage? Your request has been removed from the article. I strongly advise you remove your request for deletion. We're almost at a solution here, and if you pull that again, you'll find Same-sex marriage marked for deletion as well. On the other hand, Traditional Marriage is the antithesis of the Same-sex marriage article. If TM is a "fork" as you put it, then so will Ssm be a fork, marked for deletion. You have been so advised, be guided accordingly.

Nkras 05:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

hello

hello, nice to see another Menno on wikipedia. MennoMan 15:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Traditional Marriage

I made some changes to traditional marriage I would appreciate your comments--GMS508 02:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Rbj—I want to apologize for the way I treated you. I was wrong. You were also right, there are interest groups here that are exerting way too much influence. Until I saw what they did to user Nkras tonight I did not understand. Take care.--GMS508 03:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

GMS, i don't think you treated me wrong at all. but i still don't know the story behind Nkras's indefinite block. can you fill me in? r b-j 04:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nkras

Please let me know if you plan to take his block to Arbcom. While I opposed Nkras on most points, I did respect him as an editor and would support the block being lifted. I am shocked at how Wiki admin has handled this. Jeffpw 10:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rbj. I see that you're investing significant time in this, and I don't want your work overlooked, so here are my suggestions of best practices for Nkras's case. Inform the editors you invited to ARBCOM of the ANI case already opened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disputed indef block of User:Nkras, and ask them to comment there instead while remaining WP:COOL. Withdraw the WP:RFAr case at least until the WP:ANI path is finished, as Newyorkbrad suggested; this will help the people at ANI understand that you are trying to not overreact, and every appearance of chill on your part will help you. Also, in the interest of WP:AGF, try to understand what Zscout370 was seeing when blocking Nkras. I have tried to explain the details at User talk:Nkras#Overreaction?, and it is my hope that it makes Zscout's perspective understandable; at the very least consider it before you make accusations about that admin's motivations. If it changes your mind at all, strike out the suggestions of bad faith that you made at WP:ANI and explain that you've reconsidered; again, chill helps you. And if you find my explanation even halfways helpful, forward the link to your allies so they can go into ANI prepared with that perspective. I feel like I'm forgetting something, but in any case, I thought there was some place where one could request generalized assistance from an admin or a veteran user; you might "where?" at WP:HELPDESK. You might not get someone to actually argue your case, but someone might give you further advice on how to handle matters. If you feel the need to vent about admin actions, I think you will be heard at WP:PUMP, but making it personal at this particular ANI case probably does no good for Nkras. — coelacan talk — 06:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's deleted it, so here it was. — coelacan talk — 06:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

listen, i didn't approve of Nkras's overall behavior, even from the beginning. but he/she has a very important point that you and the same-sex interest group are still refusing to acknowledge: "Editors such as Coelacan believe in the hypocrisy that Traditional Marriage is an illegitimate article and Same-sex marriage is not." it's really frank and undiplomatic, but the case solid. you "allow" (what gives you that right?) neither the Marriage article to reflect the primary definition of marriage as depicted in the 3 major English-language dictionaries nor another article to reflect it. but you do allow (as the gospel of the gay-rights movement puts forth) both the same-sex definition to exist prominantly in the Marriage article and for it to be described explicitly in it's own Same-sex marriage article. this is blatent hypocrisy. it ain't pretty, Coelacan, but that is what it is, and you are handing a rhetorical gift to your forensic opponents and to the Religious right. they will, someday, take this obvious POV bias and bonk it over Wikipedia's head. it is that naked and embarassing. r b-j 03:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too interested in arguing this beyong a couple of comment-reply-comment-replies, so let's try to aim for a quickie. Number one, man, I ain't afraid of the religious right and I couldn't care less what they think or say about Wikipedia. Nobody listens to them outside of their own echo chambers, and inside of those circles, they're naturally distrustful of any organization or process that doesnn't hand down Truth From On High.

we all have our own echo chambers to worry about and what we believe is dogma.

The desperation for words that cannot change and authoritarian, hierarchical structure is utterly incompatible with Wikis,

but what is compatible (even mandated) is WP:NPOV and WP:V. this primary definition in the article fails both. and we've proven it.

so forgive me if I don't shed any tears about their distaste for this encyclopedia. I don't know whether you are "religous" or "right" and I don't care,

i am one, but not the other. can you guess which?

so don't take this as an indictment of your person; even if you are both of those things you are an individual and thus a potential exception. To the issue at hand, the article when I AfD'd it was JUST a pov-fork.

i agree!!! and i further agree that Nkras was making a point. but that does not detract from the fact that the Marriage article is biased toward the SSM crowd by not allowing the lead definition in the article to be compatible with the lead definition in the dictionaries. otherwise, we all have our opinions and definitions of what marriage is, and in a contentious case as this is, there is no other authorative arbiter to prefer one over the other. Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:WINAD, and an entry that consists of just a definition does not belong: But, an article can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic. a lead definition in a contentious article that is not decided objectively by an outside, unbiased, and authoritative source (in this case, the OEM, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage English-language dictionaries) is not a "good" definition because it reflects the POV of some side in a debated and contentious issue.

I don't know how you can argue that it was anything but.

i don't. i never supported it's inclusion in WP. it was skirting the real problem, which is the POV edits put into Marriage and the NPOV corrections being deleted as being "POV" (which is a false assertion repeatedly made). and, still, i don't know how you can argue that it was anything but. you guys do, but the argument fails both the tests of forensics (it's unconvincing) and of objectivity (it's biased).

The SSM article describes a phenomenon, as does the general Marriage article when it's working well.

i agree. the article should be there and it should be referred to in the Marriage article to about the extent that it is. but the lead definition in the Marriage article need not be made to be consistent with what the SSM article says. the NPOV articles would live in some contrast or conflict with each other. the Religious Right does not get to go to the same-sex marriage article and define it as "disgusting godless sodomy" or similar. just the same, the SSM crowd does not get to edit the Marriage article so it reflects the world as they see it. this is the kernel of the hypocrisy and POV-pushing.

The TM article existed to "define" marriage as one thing and not another. There is no clearer example of a pov-fork, and I'm frankly surprised that you can find it in yourself to defend it. Now, you want to talk about definitions, man, I have laid out my feeling on "definitions" over and over at Talk:Marriage/Archive3. I don't see what good it does. I am not opposed to describing the fact of which societies practice marriage this way and which ones that way. That's fine. I don't want the articles to "define" marriage as something between two adults nor to "define" it as between a man and a woman. I have tried to make that clear, that definitions are a dead-end route, but nobody else seems to agree with me. So at the present time I've given up. I've got other stuff to work on. — coelacan talk — 03:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

well, not everyone agrees with the dictionary definitions, either (both the lead which defines marriage with the words "husband and wife" or the inclusion of SSM), but that's who gets to decide if there is not otherwise consensus, and there just is not here. OEM, Webster, etc. gets to decide, and in 50 years when life and society has changed so much that these dictionaries take out "husband and wife" or perhaps (not damn likely) SSM, the WP definition gets to change to reflect that.

anything else is POV. r b-j 04:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. I've heard this all from you at least a dozen times already. How many more times do you have to say "gay pov pushers" before you are sure that you've been heard? I'm not involved in the article at this time. I'm not interested in arguing this with you. I came to your userpage to give you advice on how to handle Nkras's block. I just wanted to make sure you weren't banging your head against concrete; I gave assistance because it was apparent that you didn't know which direction to take and I felt sympathy. But it's resolved now, and I don't feel like playing captive audience to another of your rants. Good night. — coelacan talk — 04:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

you can yawn all you want, but you can't refute it and you haven't refuted it. you're trying to say "Black is White", "Up is Down", and you provide no support. this is why you are POV-pushing and the edits that I made (not Nkras) were only correcting POV, not injecting it. yawning when you're just wrong is arrogance. r b-j 04:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Same sex marriage & DOMA

While there is a Federal Defense of Marriage Act, several states have also passed Defense of Marriage Acts, and the term has become so genericized that references to the Federal law . Also, the phrase "some states have adopted referendums or laws" is redundant, as referenda (once passed) are laws. Might I suggest: "laws and Constitutional amendments."

Also, the language that you removed as POV is a direct paraphrase of the language on miscegenation laws. My thinking in phrasing it that way was that if it is NPOV to ascribe racism to those laws, then it is NPOV to analogously describe Federal & state DOMA efforts. To wit:

Homophobic laws, generally referred to as Defense of Marriage Acts, have been increasingly adopted by other states which generally restrict marriage recognition to heterosexual couples.

and

Racist laws adopted by some societies in the past, such as Nazi-era Germany, apartheid-era South Africa and most of the United States in the first half of the 20th century, which prohibited marriage between persons of different races

I'm not trying to push a POV with this edit, but trying to describe both situations with equivalent language where equivalencies exist between them. --Ssbohio 12:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

the characterization of laws, policies, or political opposition that some interest group does not like with a pejorative, is POV. that's what all the battling around the article Homophobia was about, and i think that, with the help of mediation, finally got settled down. you have the right to call political opponents to the LGBT agenda "homophobic", but they will likely not see themselves as such, and, unless it is an objective application of the dictionary definition of the word, such use to characterize one side of the debate with such a pejorative is POV. r b-j 05:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Marriage as a prerequisite for having children

Thanks for your comments at Talk:Marriage#Marriage_as_a_prerequisite_for_having_children. The 3% statistic is useful. Do you have a citable source for it?

i added up the populations of all of the jurisdictions in dark blue on this map (5 countries and the state of Massachusetts) and divided by 6 billion. r b-j 21:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you haven't yet, you might want to read http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1964183,00.html. Regards, Sdsds 07:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

i'll look when i have time. r b-j 21:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Debate on Marriage Talk page

Given that the discussion on the Marriage TalkPage is becoming a dialogue, it might be more appropriate here. You seem to believe that some LBGT group has hijacked Wikipedia and I probably can do little to convince you otherwise. It is right to say that there is an above average representation of lesbian, gay and bisexual people among contributors to Wikipedia. The policy of writing in a NPOV manner should combat any bias that results in. Obviously you feel it has not.

I don't know how it has come about but the concensus version of the introduction is unsatisfactory. It doesn't not explain to the reader what form marriage predominantly takes in the world or explain the limited scope of same sex marriage in the world. Much as I would oppose any attempt to remove mention of polygamnous or same sex marriage from the article (because they do exist), I think they should be put more in context. Is that idea acceptable to you in general? WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 06:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to create a version of the introduction that might be a mutually acceptable compromise. Please have a look at User:WJBscribe/Drafts and let me know what you think. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 07:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

it's a stab at it, but it doesn't deal with the main POV problem of deleting "husband and wife" from the primary definition. that deletion is POV. when an article becomes contentious, particularly with the lead sentence (which does serve as a definition - WP:WINAD), the only way we are going to get around this problem of whose POV is NPOV is to go to an outside reference or authority. the initial statement must say "husband and wife" because that is in the primary definition of every dictionary. very soon following in the lead, it must mention "same-sex marriage" because that is also a (secondary) definition in every English language dictionary. r b-j 19:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I added "World Religions and Same Sex Marriage", Marriage Law Project, Columbus School of Law, Washington, DC, July 2002 revision [8] as a reference and the descriptor "predominantly" to "of a man and a woman". Nkras 04:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the red link to Marriage penalty, with a stubby little article containing a brief definition and 3 sourced quotes. --Uncle Ed 18:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Traditional marriage target

I went ahead and changed the target of the redirect, since redirecting it to Traditional marriage movement makes more sense. --Coredesat 02:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Owen gingerich.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Owen gingerich.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Traditional marriage movement

The GLBTIXYZ POV pushers are at it again. Nkras 03:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[9] made on February 2 2007 to Marriage

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 48 hours.--Jersey Devil 07:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Marriage edit war

coelacan reported me to WP:AN/3rr. He also alluded to your post on Talk:nkras. I do not know if the Admin's warning about gaming the system was applied to the Ssm POV pushers.

"User has repeatedly blanked out large sections of an article. Other editors have reverted changes back to the last stable version, with a request to discuss this first before progressing. User repeatedly reverts this back to his newly shortened article, insisting that discussion starts from this new base rather than the original article."

"Comments: Not every revert is exactly the same, but the intended effect is to remove any mention of same-sex marriage from the article, especially the lead. User has been warned of 3RR before, as above diff shows. This is an established user who was blocked before over behavior in this dispute. This diff may also be of interest: "let's just team up our quota of reverts".[242] — coelacan talk — 03:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)"

The above quotes contain outright lies. colecan is an exceptionally vicious editor, selectively edits a quote to defame, and is a real passive-aggressive thug. Nkras 15:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

i'll just wait it out. you're on your own, Nkras, for the next ~36 hours. if you go to these guys' user page and see the multicolored flags there, you can tell there is an interest group here. now that is nothing new, but what is different is that they feel that their interest group has the same interest as Wikipedia as a whole as evidenced by the only Barnstar that promotes the goals of an interest group. imagine if the KKK or Republicans or Zionists or the IRA had a Wikipedia barnstar. it's clear that these guys are gaming the system and it's only that they've met opposition that this is happening. it's also clear that they are selectively citing 3RR vio. (BTW, i had a 4th revert although there were 8 edits, not all were reverts. i wasn't reverting myself.) also, what's funny, i doubt that you or i would have much in common politically, even about the issue of gay rights (i was a big Howard Dean supporter and campaign volunteer and am a Vermonter, which has civil unions, which i support). what bothers me is these guys think that their own shit does not stink. they think they can inject blatent POV on articles that are broader than their own interest group. would they tolerate it if some right-wing religious nuts went to Same-sex marriage and, in the lead sentence, said it was imaginary? that it didn't really exist? they are injecting the POV of their interest group into the lead definition of an article that extends outside of the domain solely of their interest group. what are they going to do next? edit Catholic church and redefine the Catholic view of sexuality to their liking?

i wouldn't use the word "vicious" but these guys think their own shit don't stink. r b-j 22:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I realize you and I won't agree politically - I walked out of a Howard Dean campaign stop at a Union Hall when he started lecturing about affirmative action. The standard left-right divides are not of concern here. It is about intellectual honesty, adherence to an objective standard, and to reiterate - the control of ideas and language. Wikipedia entries appear near or at the top of google searches and GLBTIXYZ POV pushers know this. btw, I used vicious to describe coelacan. The others are just pushing their own agendas with their strength in numbers. At least traditional marriage movement has stabilized. Nkras 23:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You're about to enter into another war. Be careful. jeffpw quoted me WP:NPA because of my well-founded opinion of The One Who Shall Not Be Named. Gave me a "warning ". I responded in kind. These guys just don't like their authority or their open-minded beliefs questioned. Nkras 06:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The Marriage Thing

...oh boy.. i just wandered into that article, and made a change - came here to offer support for your attempts at sanity over the last little while - and appear to have joined a shitstorm... hmmm...

anyways - just from the talk page stuff, you've been patient and sensible, and clearly right! I'm not sure if i've got the stamina or interest to stay the course with the article, but i'll take a look for a little while.. just thought i'd give you a nudge of support...

cheers,

Petesmiles 00:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks. helping out with this article would be, well, helpful. and what it needs is numbers. i still can't edit yet (except here), if you're not doing anything now, could you revert Physical constant to this version? some 50th century vandals got into there. i'll deal with it in about 12 hours if no one else does it first. r b-j 03:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Marriage

While you're an established editor and I'm sure well aware of WP:3RR, just thought I'd remind you that you're close to it on this article. Certainly no one needs to get blocked over this! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 05:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Your Most Recent Edit Summary

Please avoid using abusive edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks and happy editing. ThePointblank 04:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

i'm admittedly less civil to brazen vandals. i could think of harsher terms than either "vandal" or "zit-faced adolecent". r b-j 04:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to use edit summaries along those lines, as it falls under the guidelines of Wikipedia:Civility, as it is rude, uncivilized, and judgmental, regardless if the person was a vandal. A more appropriate edit summary would have been 'revert, vandalism' or 'rv, vandalism'. ThePointblank 04:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Got your message....

.. and popped back onto the marriage article.....

You're quite rude to stupid people! - This does not bother me at all! (but don't get stressed and blocked again because it's better not to....) - hope you're well.... Petesmiles 10:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hope all is well

They're really getting annoyed with me. :-D 63.228.54.148 05:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

threatening meatpuppetry

Rbj, I have removed[10] what you have now claimed as your own threat of meatpuppetry.[11] I will assume good faith as I suspect you did not completely think your action through. As you know, this is not the first time Nkras has made these threats.[12] Wikipedia takes such threats very seriously. Do not reinsert the threat or "take ownership" of it again. — coelacan talk — 06:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Then it is you who is threatening meatpuppetry. — coelacan talk — 19:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

bullshit. where do you get that from? r b-j 21:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Rbj, those comments are not helpful to the article and are coming from a guy who has been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. Nkras' comment appears to show that they may use socks in the future to sway the decision of consensus in any discussion related to that article. Saying "evert deletion. these are words i might say. i take ownership of them." is not helping your own case, and that's why coelacan got the impression that you were claiming that you would use meatpuppets in the future. Nishkid64 22:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. I wouldn't waste my time. It will be the hundred or so traditionalist new editors that will cause the current prevailing cyberbureaucrats to finally understand consensus and know what it is to be at the receiving end of WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA enforcement. 63.228.46.233 22:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You may want to comment or add, at your discretion.

Quoted from my auto-da-fe:

Per the above discussion and past threads regarding this matter, Nkras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is henceforth banned from editing Wikipedia by the community. All edits made by Nkras and/or his sockpuppets may be reverted and such IPs and accounts may be blocked per WP:BAN. I know not of how these circumstances came to place, so could someone be kind and write up an entry in WP:BU for Nkras? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

*Comment: If you do not know the circumstances that led up to this action, you can not legitimately make a determination and a finding of fact in the matter. I have given evidence of violations by an editor in above paragraphs. Look into those, and do your job. 63.228.40.220 01:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added an entry for him. Others may wish to double check it and see if it needs fine-tuning but I think it covers the relevant details. WjBscribe 00:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

63.228.43.69 02:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Rbj, Nkras is now community banned, per Wikipedia:Community noticeboard#Proposed community ban of Nkras. Please follow the policy at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Enforcement by reverting edits, in particular: "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users." Best to let this one go, now. — coelacan talk — 02:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

If you insist on "taking ownership" of other people's comments, then you take ownership of the consequences of those comments. You have been blocked indefinitely for making legal threats (here and here: the comment about calling counsel). You will be unblocked when you withdraw the threats. --bainer (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

i made no legal threats and no threats at all to anyone. r b-j 16:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BAN: "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take responsibility for their content by so doing." — coelacan talk — 16:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note my retraction of intent to pursue legal action: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thebainer#Retraction_of_intent_to_pursue_legal_action 63.229.199.170 17:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Be well and take care

It's good to see that putting in a good word for you perhaps worked. It could be that Mr. Wales listened. I just didn't want an innocent third party punished because of authoritarian retributionists. With that, and some more of life's lessons learned, I'll say good bye. I wish you luck, and hope that you realize Wikipedia - a dystopia if there ever was an example - is not worth the energy or the effort of decent human beings. Just as any other fad or cult, Wikipedia will go away, eventually. I'll wait for a few days to clean up some loose ends and for your response, but that's it. I believe I got my point across to the authoritarians. Be well and take care. Sincerely, nkras 63.229.195.122 02:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo made the decision to unblock me before he left the note to User:Thebainer. this was a result of an email i sent him.

i will repeat that what you said this is about the control of ideas, definitions, and language, is completely true. and whether you are banned or not, this point has validity. we both know that the LGBT interest group is trying to use Wikipedia to further their social and political goals by defining the terms of the debate in their favor even though these terms (like marriage) have other neutral and authorative definitions that are partly not so favorable (i.e. the dictionary definitions reflect the conflicting definitions which, like the Religious Right is what they don't wish to show). we both know that they are the ones gaming the system and manipulating it for their partisan purposes.

but i doubt there was much that you have said or could have said to help. dunno what you did to get indefinitely blocked, but i know what i didn't do and got indefinitely blocked anyway. but, moreso than some the admins, Jimbo is actually pretty reasonable and, if i can break through and get his attention (which is not always the case), i have never been disappointed. i had a nasty experience with an abusive and power-hungry admin named Karmafist who is now banned (you are merely "indefinitely blocked"). Karma was abusive in multiple ways, but eventually it got to the attention of Jimbo and it wasn't long before he was desysopped and a little longer that he was banned. r b-j 02:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

commons Pic of the Year vote

i am the same as commons:Rbj. r b-j 07:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design opening.

I don't, in principle, object to a well-selected quote about intelligent design as the opening, but it'd need more thorough revision of the paragraph before the phrase "Its leading proponents..." It may also be possible to find a better quote to use, as that one's awfully wishy-washy and indefinate (belief that it may require?)

In short, I support your view, but think it'd be best to find a better quote, and integrate it more seamlessly. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Smile:)

James, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Personal attacks

Lying involves intentional falsehood. Accusing someone of lying pre-supposes their motivation. When you accuse someone of lying, you violate the policy on personal attacks. If you are unaware of this policy, please read the link provided, and then remove your accusations. Thanks. 35.9.6.175 06:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

it is intentional. FM has done it repeatedly in the past and continues to do it. he is deliberately mischaracterizing my position w.r.t. the article. he is trying to portray me as some kind of pro-ID apologist and he makes claims of things i supposedly have said that i never have. because he has done this repeatedly leaves no doubt about his motivation. he's not an honest player. r b-j 06:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked you for personal attacks. Even after the above warning by a helpful anon, you respond by with further remarks. JoshuaZ 19:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

what "further remark" do you mean? this? or this?. or did you mean the edit to Dimensional analysis? those were the only edits i made since 35.9.6.175's "helpful warning". please be specific what was the violation in the "further remarks" that prompts your action. r b-j 20:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe he means this edit. Guettarda 02:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

so what's the violation? r b-j 05:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, did you read my initial comment? Calling another editor a liar is a personal attack, which violates policy.

i do not see that in this document you cited. the guideline says no such thing.

I warned you about your behaviour. You should have removed your personal attacks.

if you are the "helpful anon", you had already done it. what was i expected to do then?

You should have apologised to FM.

i should apoligize to FM for violating me? he misrepresented and mischaracterized what i have said multiple times. he is not an honest player. he is also using his position as an admin to push POV in the article as well as at some related ones like Fine-tuned universe and anthropic principle. but the latter is another arguement.

At the very least, you should have stopped engaging in that sort of behaviour.

what behavior? dissent? identifying a lie for what it is? the guideline says "Comment on content, not on the contributor" and that is precisely what i did.

Instead, despite being warned, you chose to engage in further personal attacks.

what are you talking about? i didn't go to his page or the ID talk page and call anyone a goddamn, no-good for nutin', scumbag. i identified certain statements as lies which are what they are.

If you choose to violate policy, you can be blocked. If you respond to a warning by continuing to engage in the same sort of behaviour, you almost certainly will be blocked.

i didn't violate policy. you have not identified the policy that i violated.

Surely you could have figured that out on your own? Guettarda 06:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

yeah, what i figured out and you proved by crying to an admin is that there is a politically correct censorship at Wikipedia and power exceeds principle. i'm not stupid. r b-j 06:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert you on your own talk page, but please don't edit my signed comments. Thanks. Regarding your responses - I didn't just point you towards the policy document, I explained to you initially why calling someone a liar constitutes a personal attack. With that knowledge, you chose to repeat the attack, and were blocked for your attacks. Coming off your block, I explained to you once again which actions of yours got you blocked. Your response is to once again repeat the action. Guettarda 06:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Rbj, in case this wasn't clear, Guettarda is an admin already, he just didn't do anything because it's considered poor form to block someone you're engaged in arguing with.

I agree with him that you continue to violate the policy on not making personal attacks (WP:NPA). Calling people liars is a violation of that policy. I don't care if you're left or right, blue or red or plaid; if you keep this up, you will be blocked for longer and longer and eventually banned from Wikipedia. Our rules say not to do that - we've warned you repeatedly. Either live by the no personal attacks rule, or live with the consequences, somewhere else. It's entirely up to you. All you have to do is stop using abusive and attacking language. Georgewilliamherbert 08:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You have been warned and blocked repeatedly. Further violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL can result in more longer blocks. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 22:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Anthropic Principle

Hi Rbj, you made a couple of changes to this today which I don't think are helpful but I don't want to get into an edit war so I'll put it to you here:

• The terminology of the AP is such a mess that even terms like WAP are ambiguous (e.g. Carter vs. Barrow & Tipler). So I think its better to explain the various definitions in the body of the article rather than anticipating one particular definition in the introduction.

• Isn't it fair to say that all versions of the AP involve the implicit Q&A "Why is the universe observer-supporting?... Because we wouldn't be here to see it if it were not." Where they diverge is where to go from there, e.g. to what extent you think this counts as an explanation, what you need to add to it to make it an explanation (e.g. multiverse, God, participatory principle etc). I added some words to this effect a few days ago but they got instantly removed.

• A petty gripe, I know, but an argument doesn't conclude with a premise, simply from the definition of "premise".

PaddyLeahy 21:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

hi Paddy. i hope you don't mind, but i moved this to Talk:Anthropic principle. is that okay? (i hope so, because our user_talk pages are not private.) i think all of this should be discussed in an open forum where others can pipe in. r b-j 23:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

NPA warning

[13] You really need to stop the personal attacks. You've been warned and even blocked before for this, and it seems to have left you none the wiser. FeloniousMonk 04:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I would note that the only part of his post that could be described as an attack was the phrase "obstinate and POV-pushing editors". Perhaps that wasn't entirely civil, but in the context, I think it was more an expression of frustration than a willful attack. Gnixon 18:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess that the complaint was in regards to the term "dishonesty". Using terms like 'lies' and 'dishonesty', even when accurate, is considered incivil. If someone mis-represents your position then you should be all means correct them, but leave off any theories (or 'facts') about their motives/personality/behaviour/et cetera. As an involved party who has violated ([14] [15] [16] [17]) this principle himself, FeloniousMonk isn't the best person to be making the case for 'perfect civility', but the point is accurate regardless. Looking at the page in question there has been alot of nastiness on all sides. Try to concentrate only on issues regarding the text - not the people involved. --CBD 16:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

but FM hasn't been sanctioned for either this (violating civility) or for the dishonesty in repeatedly misrepresenting me. i take twisting what i say into something else (a strawman or worse) personally. the gross double standard here where, because one is an admin and has admin friends, some people get to lie about others and then block those persons for simply identifying such and moreover, get to flagrantly violate civility themselves with no resulting sanction, that is nothing other than hypocrisy. it reminds me of the flagrant admin abuse of User:Karmafist. eventually (far too late for my liking), it gets corrected. at least if it persists unchecked. r b-j 18:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

RBJ, your analysis of problems with the ID article is spot on. We'll win the battle against well-intentioned POV pushing by keeping the discussion focused on Wikipedia policies and standards of journalism. Similar issues exist at all the articles related to the creation-evolution controversy---your voice on their talk pages would be helpful. By the way, I'd also recommend watching the personal attacks. Once you get personal, everyone---not just the target---tends to stop listening. Best regards, Gnixon 15:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

I notice you seem to have a history of attempting to battle the (sometimes not-so-) subtle bias that plagues certain types of articles. I applaud that effort, I appreciate your frustration, and I also note with interest that we seem to work in the same scientific field---I wonder if training in the application of logic plays a role here. I hope we can keep in touch, because this issue with which we're both concerned is important and often neglected, and threatens the foundations of Wikipedia. I'd encourage you, during your edits and discussions, to be mindful of the possibility of one day bringing this issue to ArbCom, and of the need to build a consistent, rational, long-term case. Very best, Gnixon 18:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

our letters crossed in the mail. r b-j 18:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"...threatens the foundations of Wikipedia"? How hyperbolic. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

i might agree about the hyperbole but Jim, this is a case of naked and unnecessary POV not merely slipping in an article, but defining the tone of an article as this same POV asserts its own definition of a term representing a social movement (that i agree is pretty much reprehensible and i don't want to see succeed) that this POV opposes. if this happened all over Wikipedia, then the foundations (at least one, the 2^nd pillar) would be threatened. so the hyperbole is hyperbole because Wikipedia will not live or die because of what happens at Intelligent design. r b-j 02:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, but when you start noticing problems at Intelligent design, Objections to evolution, etc., then soon see quite similar issues at articles like Abortion, then hear about the same problems at other articles on controversial subjects, it starts to seem likely that Wikipedia has problems with all such articles, and questioning the support for the 2nd pillar seems less hyperbolic. Also, I might agree it was hyperbole if the community was making any effort to stem the tide of bias, but aside from WP:CSB, which seems primarily concerned with more benign forms of bias, I see no such efforts. Gnixon 03:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

well, you might be right about this regarding a reasonably small percentage of the 1000000+ WP articles. but, just for an interesting test (i'm in no mood to defend this edit, even though the article really should have it), i made a small and accurate modification to the Abortion article. lessee if some hard-core pro-choicer wants to remove the salient fact reflected in that mod because they do not like some possible implication of it. r b-j 04:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

We'll call that one a draw. :) Gnixon 23:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'd appreciate further comment on those Physics revisions. I added to the discussion topic at Talk:Physics. Gnixon 00:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

i don't have it on my watch list, but i did notice the reference to it at your talk page and, out of curiousity, had a peek. the edits were wordy rather than concise and made the article read more like someone's column of musings regarding the whole millue of physics rather than just a straight-forward introduction to the discipline. r b-j 00:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, okay. I think the wordiness has since been improved, and the paragraph has been more focused by taking a consistent historical approach. It would have been nice if you could read the two versions in their context. Anyway, I'll defer to you until other editors chime in. Gnixon 01:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Euler's formula

Why the previous demonstration using differential equations was taken out?

Thank You for your response, there are some different points you raised so I will try to respond in each reply. Ricardo sandoval 12:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Using differential equations

Suppose

$P(t)=e^{it}\$

is a trajectory on the complex plane,

we can do that, but you are setting up a proof by geometry. the visualization of this as cartesian 3-space should not be necessary for a proof. then you essentially are depending on these visual representations rather than analytically.

Actually the proof is meant to work both from the geometrical and the analytical point of view.

that's a problem. if you're going to prove that the Re{e^it} = cos(t) and Im{e^it} = sin(t), by depending on some geometric constructs, you have to set up and define the constructs, you have to find and prove necessary properties of those geometric constructs, and you have to show that certain manipulations in the context of those constructs that you need to use for your proof (like the "multiply by i rotates something or another by 90^o" property that you seem to be relying on). this is why you have a problem, here. these are not proofs.

The geometrical side just makes some passages more meaningful. I will try to clarify the proof in the next replies.

using the Taylor series definition of the exponential it is possible to show that

$P'(t)=(e^{it})'=ie^{it}=iP(t)\$

so you have "something times P(t) is the same something times e^it." is this new information?

It is not new I know. I was only trying to focus the reader for the information following.

and

$P(0)=e^{i0}=e^{0}=1\$

then P(t) describes a trajectory in the complex plane that at t = 0 is at 1 and which velocity P '(t) is always perpendicular, (90 degrees counter-clockwise) to P(t) and the velocity P '(t) also has the same modulus as P(t).

a visual description of a parametric equation in 3-space. why does multiplying by i have anything to do with 90^o?

Strange comment, multiplying by i turns counter-clockwwise by 90 degrees every complex number since it adds an angle of 90 degrees, leaving their module unchanged.

it's a question you have to answer if you're going to rely on it for proof. you are making

Such trajectory can only be the circular movement with radius one, unit velocity,

what does this mean? you are appealing to facts (that haven't been established) regarding all sorts of other concepts. this is about an algebraic expression regarding the exponential function and a purely imaginary number.

I guess this part of the argument should have been done better. Consider that the circular movement in fact has the properties desired. If f(t)= cos(t)+isin(t) by deriving we get f'(t)= -sint +i cost= i*f(t), the reference to the circular movement(were the velocity is perpendicular to the position hence the i ) is to get a more geometrical demonstration for this algebraic fact. So we have P(t) and f(t) satisfying the same differential equation with the same initial value so they must be the same.

starting at the point 1: cos(t) + i sin(t), hence by uniqueness of solution of differential equations, see Picard–Lindelöf theorem:

now you're appealing to some other theorem which itself references some arcane Lipschitz continuous condition. and someone reading this has tied all this together to prove:

I know that the reference is cumbersome but when properly viewed turns out to be sufficient. I would like a less cumbersome article for the Picard–Lindelöf theorem.

$e^{it}=\cos(t)+i\sin(t).\$

viola!

(it's not a proof.)

so far, you have:

$P'(t)=(e^{it})'=ie^{it}=iP(t)\$

which, from what we know about what imaginary and complex numbers means

$\mathrm {Re} \left\{e^{it}\right\}=\mathrm {Re} \left\{P(t)\right\}$

and

$\mathrm {Im} \left\{e^{it}\right\}=\mathrm {Im} \left\{P(t)\right\}$

that does not show that

$\mathrm {Re} \left\{e^{it}\right\}=\cos(t)$

or

$\mathrm {Im} \left\{e^{it}\right\}=\sin(t)$

it's not a proof.

And the introduction to the proofs?

oh dear,

Proofs of Euler's formula vary by what is taken to be the definition of $e^{ix}\,$,

the definition is that e^ix is the base of the natural logarithm raised to the power of a purely imaginary number ix where x is real and i is the imaginary unit and i ² = -1. that's what you have (and what you get from algebra and calculus, of which i consider diff. eq. to be just a little more advanced calculus).

for the real case e^{x} can be defined in different ways, by defining as the inverse of log(the integral between 1 and x of 1/t) that is used in many books, would not extend to complex numbers directly because the terms are explicitly real. By defining it as a Taylor series everything would be generalized in a straightforward fashion.

a common definition is based on the Taylor series of $e^{z}\,$ (see below).

that's a result. e^x (real x) has meaning before any Taylor or Maclauren series, the derivatives of it can be calculated for any order and equated to the corresponding derivatives of a power series and you have the Maclauren series (a specific case of Taylor series).

Ok e^x (real x) has meaning, but how we give a meaning for e^{ix}?

that's essentially the kernel of our discussion. whatever e^z = e^x+iy means (x and y are real), it better reduce to the same meaning as e^x when the imaginary part, y becomes zero. and all other known properties of the exponential must apply. the imaginary unit has meaning. and that is that it does not depend on y (i.e. a constant) and i ² = -1. since the properties of the base-e exponential remain by extension then we know that

$e^{i(y_{1}+y_{2})}=e^{iy_{1}}e^{iy_{2}}$

${\frac {d}{dy}}e^{iy}=e^{iy}{\frac {d}{dy}}(iy)=i\,e^{iy}$

and you go on from there. the first is true for an exponential of any base and the latter is precisely true only for base-e exponentials. these are the intrinsic properties of the exponential that you can rely on. making use of the Maclauren series for both e^z (and extending for an imaginary exponent) and for cos(x) and sin(y) and is one way to prove this, which is done in the article. but that Maclauren series is a result of another analysis, not a definition of the exponential function.

Using this definition it is possible to show that $(e^{ix})'=ie^{ix},\,$ and $e^{i0}=e^{0}=1\,$ these properties are used is some of the proofs below.

you don't need the Taylor series to prove that. but one proof of Euler's formula (in fact, the original proof) does use Taylor (more specifically "Maclauren" series) to prove that e^ix = cos(x) + i sin(x) . it's the first proof.

More on this later.

Before proving any properties of e^{z} or e^{ix} you must define it(there was a definition by Taylor series

no you don't. that's not true. you know that the expoential of a sum is the product of exponentials. you know that the derivative of an exponential function, base e, is the same exponential function. and because of the chain rule you know that for any real constant a that

${\frac {d}{dx}}e^{ax}=a\,e^{ax}$

Everything in mathematics is ultimately based in some definition.

sure, but it's not that definition.

you already know that to be true for any real a. now the analytical extension of the exponential function to imaginary argument is that you define the same rule to be valid even if a = i. whether or not a is positive or negative or squares to be a positive or negative number, as long as a does not vary with x, then the above derivative is valid (all other rules of arithmetic apply to imaginary numbers). from that you can show that there is only one solution to the real and imaginary parts of e^ix .

How is this analytical extension constructed?

i've gone over that multiple times. the intrinsic properties of e^z remain whether z is purely real, purely imaginary, or the sum of real and imaginary. the other analytic extension is that the imaginary unit is constant and has the intrinsic property that i ² = -1.

Defining something by its properties is ok if you show that something that has those properties actually exists(maybe it doesn't). How can I see there is only one solution? The previous differential equation proof shows just that. Can you reference that approach to some book I could look at? Anyway this approach is not explained in the article itself and I think it is a honest question.

in the applications part but I think it should be on the proofs part).

The alternative definition of e^{z} using limits is really used, see exponentiation,

i know that. it's true of the base-e exponential of a real exponent. the function would not have a consistent definition if it was not also true for e raised to an imaginary or complex exponent.

I think this possible definition needs to be cited, that is all.

or the algebra section on Lecture on Physics by Richard Feynman, the previous demonstration using differential equations was already pointed out by someone other then me see simpler differential-equation proof on the discussion section.

Your argument that i is a constant doesn't follow, let me try to explain better. When defining e^{x} in the real case you only show properties that work for reals. It makes a lot of sense to say that (e^{ix})' should be ie^{ix} but you still have to prove it somehow and for that you will need a definition of the exponential for complex exponents.

I did saw were you improved the article but this kind of misconception, very common I guess, is fatal. I do admit however that the article needed improvements.

it's more that i'm trying to keep the article from getting worse. the proof need rely on nothing else but what one gets from Calculus.

The article is not precise if it doesn't define e^{ix}, I can imagine two different section of the article one more didactic and less annoying and one more precise and rigorous. Perhaps that is best choice here.

My suggestion would be to start the proof section by the definition section, some authors simply define e^{ix} as cos(x)+i sin(x)

i dunno who defines that. you can, i suppose, show that f(i(x+y)) = cos(x+y)+i sin(x+y) = f(ix) f(iy) and then f(.) must be an exponential. but to say it's the base-e exponential, you must use either a limit at zero or the derivative at zero (the same thing) and that involves Calculus. without that, you don't have a complete proof.

I could look for that. You have to show(using calculus) it has the properties you would expect. I don't like it, but it works fine.

and so there is nothing to prove at all.

no, you have to prove that it works like an exponential and that the base is the same e as that of the natural logarithm.

I mean the final objective the formula is already proved in this case.

Comment on the other possible definition as Taylor series or limit (1+z/n)^n. Then cite two important properties e^{i0}=1 (immediate by any of the definitions) and (e^{ix})'=ie^{ix) (consequence of e{z}'=e^{z} and the chain rule for complex functions or simply i is a constant argument since now its ok to use it). So that these properties can be used rigorously in the other proofs. I will try to improve the text on the previous differential equation proof. By the way I agree that the integration-log proof should be taken out. Ricardo sandoval 04:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ricardo, what is the point in doing that? how does that prove Euler's formula (without depending on other facts or theorems that you leave to someone else to prove)? r b-j 07:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of the proofs in fact are based on facts that are reasonable but not proven rigorously, I also hope I clarified what was going on in the previous proof. The explanation at the picture of [Euler's identity]] is related to what I tried to convey. I will certainly rewrite it. I do fell that the extra possible definition should go in the article. Ricardo sandoval 12:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ricardo, i maybe shouldn't ask, but did you just get out of school? it seems to me that your here, eager to help (which is admirable), but i think that there is a bit of neophilia happening. i am not sure that you have the solid understanding that differentiates the things we know in advance (the axioms) and the results of what has been constructed from analysis and how one gets from the former to the latter without relying on other unproven support. that's what a proof is. we start with the axioms that we don't need to prove (like the fundamental properties of exponential functions and of the imaginary unit) and, relying on no other unproven facts other than the axioms that we start with, we proceed from the "given..." and get to the "show that...". that is what a mathematical proof is about. r b-j 16:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This conversation caught my eye for some reason, and while I haven't read through all of it or understood who was saying what, I have a comment or two. First, there are several common approaches to defining the exponential function in its real or complex forms. Three common ones are to start from the Taylor series, to start from the differential equation, or to define it as the inverse of the logarithm, defined by an integral. There are probably other approaches that aren't coming to mind right now. The choice of a definition is largely a matter of taste since all of them can be shown to be equivalent---obviously there's only one exponential function. Euler's formula is a beautiful result that pops out closer to or further from the definition of the exponential depending on which one you take. For example, it's almost immediately obvious from the Taylor series or differential equation, but probably further removed from the natural log definition. Hope this helps! I use Euler's equation all the time at work, as I'm sure RBJ does, so I'm looking forward to reading the article you're discussing. Gnixon 16:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I should note that the familiar property z^(x+y)=z^x*z^y for irrational x,y generalizes the property that follows from algebraic definitions for x,y rational and follows from either of the three definitions I mentioned. Gnixon 18:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ricardo sandoval 22:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Anyways, I don't see an answer to:

" Consider that the circular movement in fact has the properties desired. If f(t)= cos(t)+isin(t) by deriving we get f'(t)= -sint +i cost= i*f(t), the reference to the circular movement(were the velocity is perpendicular to the position hence the i ) is to get a more geometrical demonstration for this algebraic fact. If P(t)=e^{ix}, and we have e^{ix}'=ie^{ix} and e^{i0}=1 then P(t) and f(t) satisfy the same differential equation with the same initial value so they must be the same."

You didn't pointed a problem in this reasoning and I don't see one.

I think the definition of e^z as the limit (1+z/n)^n should be on the article, agree or disagree?

Your point on the rigor of the proofs:

"That's essentially the kernel of our discussion. whatever e^z = e^x+iy means (x and y are real), it better reduce to the same meaning as e^x when the imaginary part, y becomes zero. and all other known properties of the exponential must apply. the imaginary unit has meaning. and that is that it does not depend on y (i.e. a constant) and i ² = -1. since the properties of the base-e exponential remain by extension then we know that

$e^{i(y_{1}+y_{2})}=e^{iy_{1}}e^{iy_{2}}$

${\frac {d}{dy}}e^{iy}=e^{iy}{\frac {d}{dy}}(iy)=i\,e^{iy}$

and you go on from there. the first is true for an exponential of any base and the latter is precisely true only for base-e exponentials. these are the intrinsic properties of the exponential that you can rely on. making use of the Maclaurin series for both e^z (and extending for an imaginary exponent) and for cos(x) and sin(y) and is one way to prove this, which is done in the article. but that Maclaurin series is a result of another analysis, not a definition of the exponential function."

1) This point is not made on the article. 2) It is not completely rigorous since "properties don't remain by extension" unless you explicitly construct an extension that makes them work. Anytime I saw/read an argument "by extension" it always assumed a result or argument that would permit the extension to be done explicitly. And I don't see this done here. 3) Give me some reference that uses the reasoning that you are pointing too, maybe I am just missing something (I think I am not) and I will certainly read it. Ricardo sandoval 22:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you saw my latest reply above? Ricardo sandoval 13:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

i've had other fish to fry. perhaps i can get back to this by the evening. r b-j 21:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

okay, Ricardo. let's start with your concern 1) This point is not made on the article. precisely, which point do you mean? is it the point that if one were to derive meaning for the exponential function of an imaginary argument, that the fundamental properties of that exponential function that exist for real arguments continue to hold even with imaginary arguments? is that the point that is your concern?

concern 2) It is not completely rigorous since "properties don't remain by extension" unless you explicitly construct an extension that makes them work. that is precisely the what Euler's formula is. (BTW, i think it's Euler's 300th birthday today or tomorrow and this is possibly his most famous legacy. either this or the more specific eⁱ π + 1 = 0 which relates the five most important numbers together in a single and concise equation). Euler's formula is that of constructing a meaning extension to the exponential function for imaginary arguments that retains the meaning and properties of the exponential function. and, with this as the guiding principle, there are a few different ways to derive this formula from the first principles.

now, even though the exponential function is not originally defined as its Maclaurin series (Taylor series evaluated a x₀=0) (nor are original definitions of the sin() and cos() functions), it turns out from Calculus that all three of these functions have valid Maclaurin series that can be derived with explicit coefficients without any mention or reference to complex or imaginary numbers. that fact (which is also a property of the said functions) can be used to derive Euler's formula and this is how Euler himself did it and how it is done in the first proof of the article.

however, the same fundamental properties of the exponential and sinusoidal functions that were used to determine their Maclaurin series can be used directly to derive Euler's formula and that is what is done in the other two proofs.

now, in Euler's formula article, we do not need to derive these earlier properties of the exponential or sinusoidal functions because they already exist outside of the context of complex or imaginary numbers, but we can cite those results and use them. so it the first proof, the "Taylor series" of e^x, cos(x), and sin(x) are used as axioms and the reader can go back to the appropriate articles if they don't believe such axioms. with the other two proofs, no such dependence on the Taylor series is made (so no such axiom is laid out to start) but the properties of the exponential and sinusiods (essentially what their derivatives are and what they evaluate to when x=0) are used. in both cases, the reader need not accept, as axiom, anything more complicated or esoteric than simple calculus and they are forced, by the flow of argument in the proofs, that the only expression for the real and imaginary parts of e^iy be cos(y) and sin(y) respectively. if the real and imaginary parts were anything other than cos(y) and sin(y), then some fundamental property of the exponential function or other results from calculus (that is axiomatic in these proofs) would not hold. you know, properties like

$e^{x_{1}+x_{2}}=e^{x_{1}}e^{x_{2}}$

and

${\frac {d}{dx}}e^{x}=e^{x}$

a good proof of Euler's formula only appeals to such properties and does not rely on other superfulous constructs. in fact, those other facts actually depend on Euler's formula, not the other way around. that is why relying on them (such as this 90 degree rotation thing) for proof of Euler's formula is, essentially, a circular argument which fails as a proof. r b-j 20:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We are not understanding each other here. I appreciate your effort in trying to explain to me but nothing you said was new. I know that in different places in literature different definitions are used and so they should be cited. And I still think the other proofs besides the Taylor series are not rigorous and are heuristic at best. In any case if they are Ok we should support them with literature, and find out if others proofs are used that is all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ricardo sandoval (talk • contribs) 21:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

I was thinking of erasing some stuff on the talk page of [Euler's formula]], since I think our discussion makes both mine and your points hard to discern and understand and there is a lot of repetition on it(with your permission). If you want you can also delete the text above. I was also thinking of remaking in a different way the point of my older differential equation demonstration. And finally you didn't answear my last reply on the talk page. Ricardo sandoval 18:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

ID from Tomandlu

Hi rbj, hope you enjoyed/enjoy the register piece. Thanks for your support - afaict we share a similar attitude as to what would make a good lead for ID. I've enjoyed your contributions to the talk page, but I've been somewhat wary of offering to much support - you're not exactly the peace-maker. I would be honoured if you would take this as a personal attack, or whatever other ridiculous and abused bit of wiki-protocol it might fall foul of... hope you take this in the spirit it's intended, all the best, Tomandlu 22:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, RB. A note on pragmatism. I think if we've got a version of the lead that the "POV-pushers" might be willing to accept, it's best to avoid provoking them with strong language. Just my two cents, and some preaching that I don't always practice. Best, Gnixon 02:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

i'll watch for a while. but it already looks like FM has declared war on it. this guy does not fight fair, he will grossly misrepresent your words and if you call him on it, he will get another admin to block you. he's had me blocked twice and he's misrepresented me (including naming an anon-IP as my sock puppet) more times than i can count. like User:Karmafist, he's an abusive admin who should never have been given sysop authority (i.e. a self-appointed POV-pusher with a gun). but i think he's smarter than Karma in that he won't go so far over-the-top that Jimbo and/or the ArbCom have no choice but to de-sysop him (and Karma was later banned entirely). so be careful. FM may be discredited, but he still has some bite left. r b-j 17:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning and the history. I've bumped into him a couple times now, and I too wonder how he got administrative privileges. I think my strategy will be to stand up to him when necessary, but to keep my nose clean by watching what I say (I try to do that always for the sake of general principles), so that if it gets to the point of having someone else step in, I'll have kept the "high ground." The fact that silly things like power struggles have to be worried about around here really gets on my nerves. Gnixon 19:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User page vandalism

Please don't vandalize my User Page. If you wish to make a comment, please do so on my Talk page. --Britcom 23:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

okay. :-/ r b-j 02:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Talk:Intelligent design

This edit is getting very near, if it isn't already, a personal attack. Please try to be a bit more civil. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Adam, precisely what is the personal attack? did i call them stupid? or evil? make no mistake, i am going after their position, which deserves criticism, but i made no personal attack. how many times have i been misrepresented repeatedly on that very same talk page with me and my advocation and use of neutral and cited dictionary definitions called "Creationist propaganda" or "DI party line"? this was completely false, always had been, and these legitimate concerns of neutrality have been repeatedly dismissed under blatently false pretenses. FM has attacked me several times and he has never been called to account for it. none of these editors (i might have to include you) took any of this seriously until several more fresh editors (the other critics have given up) came in and asserted the obvious. only then did things start to move for the better neutrality of the article.

so can you please spell out precisely what is the personal attack? (and use a single standard, the same standard applied to what several of these editors have said to me.)

I'll admit I'm probably a bit more sensitive now than before, but there's a mocking tone and claims kof POV-pushing that aren't really justified. I'll get on them if they do the same to you in future. Adam Cuerden ^talk

then i'm taking this to mean i did not personally attack anyone. i guess i already knew that. r b-j 20:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right about it probably not amounting to a personal attack, as it's impersonal, but you are constantly violating WP:CIVIL of late. Please try and calm down. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

tell the other editors to stop misrepresenting me. tell them to stop lying. r b-j 01:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides but I noticed that you were reported to the Admin noticeboard and thought you should be aware. BTW, I didn't see your vote on the lead stuff. I know we had shared some of the same concerns on one of the lead sentences put forward, so I was hoping to see your vote on the record. Morphh ^(talk) 21:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

i voted. it's there. unless they did another one. r b-j 21:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes - another vote was created the next day - see here and the colorful chart below it for the new vote. I could infer from your last vote that you opposed #4 but I didn't want to create votes that were not present, and it wouldn't have shown which one you supported. Also there are sub-votes going on for other sentences, which you've been in the discussion in some but I did not see statments like I oppose #2 or I support 1 - see Proponents sentence and its colorful chart (I added a couple opposes in this chart as I thought it was safe to tell from your comments on it but you should take a look). Morphh ^(talk) 11:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing others' comments

As you will note from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments "Editing others' comments (except on your own user talk page) is generally not allowed." Changing instances of G_d to God without explicit permission is a breach of WP:CIVIL. Preferably you should undo this edit, at the least you should not repeat it. ... dave souza, talk 18:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would you do that rbj? I consider that a personal attack, and quite anti-semetic. Orangemarlin 18:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely outrageous behavior

I cannot believe that you took it upon yourself to edit OrangeMarlin's comments. It appears you do not have the decency to respect others beliefs. What is wrong with you? Are you mentally deranged? Are you mentally disturbed? Do you enjoy blatant vandalism and hatemongering? Do you want to just pick fights? It appears that one or more of these is true. You owe OrangeMarlin a huge apology. This is completely unacceptable behavior and I think it should not be tolerated. If you do not apologize, believe me it will be a very black mark against you, and the community might very well take steps against you. It is not unheard of for people who cannot demonstrate a minimum of civility and tolerance to be banned, or have their IP blocked, or a whole range of IP addresses near theirs blocked. If you do not want to go through a fairly ugly mess, you will straighten yourself out and start behaving like a decent human being. An immediate apology is in order and I would expect to see one if you want to stay on the side of those who show reasonableness and decency, instead of some of the lowest most vile ugly aspects of the human character.--Filll 20:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)