User talk:Arthur Rubin: Difference between revisions
→Timeframe: no dictionary prefers 'timeframe', and none but wikt even allows it |
Homoeopath (talk | contribs) →Please help!: new section |
||
| Line 270: | Line 270: | ||
:Perhaps — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 02:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC) |
:Perhaps — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 02:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Please help! == |
|||
I posted this on the Talk:Homeopathy Page:- |
|||
TenOfAllTrades, Shoemaker......How can Homeopathy be the 'Fringe view' on the Homeopathy article? If that was the case, the article on 'Islam' should also be considered 'Fringe view' and the Criticism of Islam should be on the article on Islam rather than on the 'Criticism of Islam' Page. |
|||
At WP:FRINGE, there is a section, titled, "Sufficiently notable for devoted articles", which mentions, 'Creation science', 'Apollo moon landing hoax', 'Time Cube' and 'Paul is dead' which are false allegations/rumours, so the allegations made by references 16 to 19 are not acceptable and so the whole of Para 2 must be removed from the 'Lead'. In fact, Para 1 is more than enough for an introduction. |
|||
:Is there something wrong with it? Shouldn't Para 1 alone suffice for the 'Lead'?—[[User:Homoeopath|Homoeopath]] ([[User talk:Homoeopath|talk]]) 11:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 11:43, 13 May 2008
| Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post. |
|
Status
Time Times (2008-03)
|
Time Times |
|
| Issue One • March 2008 • About the Newsletter Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier | ||
|
News
| ||
| Archives • Newsroom | ||
| If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}. | ||
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2008
If you had read the talk page before reverting...
If you had read the talk page before reverting, you would have figured out that we had reached consensus not to split that infinitive. Would you self-revert, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowest (talk • contribs) 15:24, March 12, 2008
Time Times (2008-04)
|
|
Time Times |
|
| Issue Two • April 2008 • About the Newsletter Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier | ||
|
News
| ||
| Archives • Newsroom | ||
| If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}. | ||
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:05, April 4, 2008
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Further to this, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The full remedy is located here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 15:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Arthur, I noted your WP:AE report of today and have begun investigating. For part of it, I think you were astute in this comment of March 25th - so far as I can tell, in Icke's article the bit about 9/11 is not well sourced. You might want to improve the sourcing; the issue seems to be his book # Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster, UK, Bridge of Love Publications, 2002. ISBN 0953881024, which I spotted from this source(?) which includes a longer title. Can you fix this sourcing while I keep looking at the WP:AE report? GRBerry 19:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I appreaciate the heads up. Unfortunately, we need to source all three of the items he allegedly attributes to reptillians, and I don't think they can all be sourced to that book. I'll see what I can do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
3O
Hi Arthur,
I noticed you posted a 3O and signed with four ~. 3O procedure is to use 5, timestamp only, so there's no bias based on the editor requesting (that's the theory). I've removed your name, hope you don't mind. WLU (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted bit on the 9/11 article
Hi, you deleted my link to Alexander Litvinenko on the grounds that he wasn't related to al-Qaeda. However, one of his very public accusations was that Ayman al-Zawahiri was trained by the FSB in Dagestan in late 1996 till early 1997, and was "an old agent of the FSB." According to the main 9/11 article before I made any modifications, the famous 1998 fatwa by bin Laden, al-Zawahi, and and some others was issued less than a year after al-Zawahiri left Russian custody (in jail say the FSB and al-Zawahiri, being trained by the FSB says Litvinenko and at least one other former FSB agent). The fatwa redirected the focus of Islamic terrorism (bin Laden's al-Qaeda merged with al-Zawahiri's Egyptian Jihad, both terrorism powerhouses) not just towards the West (which had already been happening), but more importantly towards Western citizens in their own country. In The Looming Tower, the author pointed to al-Zawahiri of the author of the fatwa. The 1993 WTC bombing was the first instance of this strategy in the US (I think?), but 9/11 was obviously the most noteworthy. Before, the attacks were directed at American military or diplomatic installations, but after the fatwa, civilians became fair game. Al-Zawahiri, though not often discussed, is widely acknowledged by the media as the number 2 in al-Qaeda. However, Hamid Mir (bin Laden's self-chosen biographer) said once that believes that al-Zawahiri was really in charge, both in the public relations and logistics of al-Qaeda. From what I understand, Litvinenko alleged that al-Zawahiri was trained by the FSB, and another former FSB agent says that Litvinenko himself was in charge of facilitating al-Zawahiri's entrance into Russia. On the basis of this, I think Litvinenko is relevant to anything related to al-Qaeda after the issuance of the 1998 fatwa – his accusations are too serious not to note, especially given that he accurately predicted that the consequence of defection and publicly making these allegations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssmith619 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Logic Programming and the Arbcom restriction
Hello Arthur. My semi protection of this article has just expired. There has been a new IP edit that seems to add a reference to Hewitt's work. Do you think this edit violates any Arbcom restriction? If so, you could revert this change. I don't believe I should edit the article if I may need to protect it again. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unless constraint logic programming is Hewitt's concept alone, it seems a reasonable edit, which, in addition, adds a Hewitt reference. I'll have to investigate further. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Homeopathy
You reverted without talk page discussion and edit summaries are not supposed to be used as a substitute. My addition to the talk pages relating to this matter is at Talk:Homeopathy#Homeopathy is and isn't implausible. My point, if it is not clear, relates to the matter of "scientific principles". If Whorton is being used to support the case that homeopathy does not conform to mainstream principles then his overall conclusion needs stating too. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
asking for advice
Hi Arthur,
I am still having trouble with the same editor in psychohistory.
Which is the next step? To ask for a third opinion? Leave a message in the mediation boards? I doubt that this dispute can be solved without some sort of mediation.
Which board or admin or regular editor would you recommend for a third opinion?
Glad to see you back,
Cesar Tort 04:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Britney Spears
ok, sorry :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by XCheese360 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
....interesting, I thought I did sign that last message, but I obviously didn't.--XCheese360 (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Rollback
Hi,
I'm a fellow member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Time and have made a fair amount of contributions lately--enough, at least, that I suspect that I (and the articles I edit) could benefit from Rollback privileges. Would you be willing to grant me these?
Thanks, Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Please be careful, as I've been warned for improper use of rollback, myself. (Note that the guideline as to what proper use is has been tagged "historical", so I can't tell you what the consensus is.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! I appreciate it, and I'll be careful. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
War Resister
Hello Arthur, I added the term War Resister to the article not to make any kind of political point of my own about war and its viability, but because this is a commonly used term (google it and see) analogous to Draft Dodger which is in common usage in Canada. Please consider re-adding it to the article. Thank you.Kootenayvolcano (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- The first few Google references seem to be general opposition to (a) war, and some deserters. I really don't see it.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This AfD has recently been closed by an admin as "no consensus", defaulting to keep. This decision has been taked to a deletion review, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 27#John Dwyer (professor). Since you initiated the original AfD, you may want to comment in the deletion review discussion. Nsk92 (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Sea Otter
May I please ask you why you deleted rare and the only image at Wikipedia, which shows the behavior, which is described in the article. If you want to remove this image, please discuss it at talk page of the article. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's not rare.... I suppose it's more-or-less reasonable, but the article is getting inundated with pictures. Perhaps you should remove Image:Sea_otter_with_sea_urchin.jpg. Its caption does not support existing text in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- May I please ask how many times you've seen a sea otter using a rock to break a shell or to kill a prey, or just a sea otter with a rock? Have you taken any pictures so far? Have you seen any picture of that kind of behavior at Wikipedia, or maybe at Flickr? The caption could be changed. The image you pointed out to is a very good high quality image and I wish I took it, but it is not mine image and usually I do not remove such good images from the articles, if they were not taken by me. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, as I said, that picture supports only its caption, not anything else in the article, so it shouldn't be there. Neither picture is rare, but there are few pictures released with a license we can use.
- As an aside, there should be a way to get pictures closer to the article text they support. You're about 3 paragraphs up on my screen. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Arthur, thank you for the response. I personally like the image of sea otter with a sea urchin much better than the top low resolution image of the article. The caption of the image claims that it is of sea otter with a pup, but pup is hard to impossible to see. I even believe that this image of mine
might be better than a current top image. Anyway, as I said, I just wanted to let you know my opinion and now you could remove any image you wish including the one with the rock from the article . I care no more. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Arthur, thank you for the response. I personally like the image of sea otter with a sea urchin much better than the top low resolution image of the article. The caption of the image claims that it is of sea otter with a pup, but pup is hard to impossible to see. I even believe that this image of mine
Arthur, I think an edit summary on your part would have led to less stress all around. This isn't a great way to use the rollback button. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
That memory leak
From your post on AN which I hadn't seen until now, it seems we're in agreement that Wikipedia makes Firefox leak memory? What can be done about it? What Firefox are you using? The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Time Times (2008-05)
|
|
Time Times |
|
| Issue Three • May 2008 • About the Newsletter Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier | ||
|
News
| ||
| Archives • Newsroom | ||
| If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}. | ||
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for removing your ref fix
[1] I didn't see it. Cheers, silly rabbit (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. I've done things like that before. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello friend
Hello friend, haven't seen you around the Quatloos web site lately. I post in the tax protester forum over there fairly often now.
I noticed that you deleted some of the ranting by user "BobHurt" (or "Bobhurt" - he uses two different accounts) that I had dealt with on the talk page for Income tax. And now Bob has been blocked from editing for a while. Curiously, an anonymous user (users?) seems to have been following him around in Wikipedia lately, pointing out his, um, "activities." Bob shows up here about once or twice a year and tries to debate with me on his tax protester arguments, or he rails about the putatively "corrupt" judicial system, and so on. For some reason he cannot release himself from the idea that I am from Dallas (I'm not).
Anyway, I hope things are well with you. Famspear (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Morgellons
Hi Arthur,
Would you mind adding some explanation of the revert of my edit to the talk page? Also, do you think putting an RfC tag in the NPOV tag section would be a good idea to get more input? Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
2008 and GTA IV
Hi regarding the 2008 article, the 2008 game GTA IV is set in 2008 so therefore it is not vandlism. If you want i will provide links to other wikipedia articles stating the year as 2008
Liberty_City_(Grand_Theft_Auto)#Grand_Theft_Auto_IV_rendition
Niko_Bellic
Pathfinder2006 (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: Your comments
See my talk page for a reply. Marcus22 (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Linear regression
I was surprised by your edit to linear regression with its edits summary that was so emphatic about PROPER explanation of linearity. I was concerned that some of your words might be misunderstood as meaning that polynomial regression is not an instance of linear regression, and then I came to your assertion that if one column of the design matrix X contains the logarithms of the corresponding entries of another column, that makes the regression nonlinear (presumably because the log function is nonlinear). That is grossly wrong and I reverted. Notice that the probability distributions of the least-squares estimators of the coefficients can be found simply by using the fact that they depend linearly on the vector of errors (at least if the error vector is multivariate normal). Nonlinearity of the dependence of one column of the matrix X upon the other columns does not change that at all, since the model attributes no randomness to the entries in X. Nonlinear regression, on the other hand, is quite a different thing from that. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Both versions are completely wrong, I'm afraid. I just thought the version I reverted to was closer to reality than the anti-matrix warrior's version. I'll have to make a more detailed study of the two versions and construct one that resembles reality. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
So what is it you think is wrong with the version that gives the following model?
where
- X is a nonrandom and observable n × p matrix;
- β is a nonrandom and unobservable p × 1 vector, to be estimated based on the data, using least squares;
- ε is a random and unobservable n × 1 vector of errors;
- Y is a random and observable n × 1 vector.
That is what is usually called linear regression. The fact that one column of X depends in a nonlinear way on another doesn't change that. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've put in the following language:
-
- If there is any linear dependence amongst the columns of X, then the coefficients β cannot be estimated by least squares unless β is constrained, as, for example, by requiring the sum of some of its components to be 0. However, some linear combinations of the components of β may still be uniquely estimable in such cases.
- Michael Hardy (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow and double wow! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's not my place to bring it up. If someone wants to lobby AN/I for an indefinite ban, continuing the indefinite ban of his predecessor account, I certainly wouldn't object. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Interpretation
FYI, a claim has been made that you support moving interpretation (logic) to mathematical model. I find this hard to believe. If true, I have to assume that you misspoke, since the article "mathematical model" is about the applied math topic, as in we need to create a model of this or that mechanical system in order to build it, type of thing - as opposed to models in model theory and logic. Of course both topics involve, ahem, "interpretations" and so forth - though, again, with different meanings. Tparameter (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- What I said was that a merge of model (abstract) to mathematical model mode more sense than Greg's move of that article to formal interpretation. (Greg is good at misinterpreting apparently unambiguous statements. Perhaps someone merged my comment into a different talk page as Greg rewrote and repurposed the interpretation articles? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I figured as much. Normally I would defer to your expertise or assume your were misquoted in a case like this. Tparameter (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
While I don't quite get what you're getting at with "as many of your other edits are," the number itself cannot be found in the article by clicking ctrl-F and typing in the number. You must add up the maximum Iraqi deaths, coalition deaths, contractor deaths, and media deaths, if I'm not remembering the number of categories of deaths in the article incorrectly. The number might actually be low.Fifty7 (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- You're violating synthesis by assuming that the numbers are calculated using the same methodology. The correct number might be larger, but we may only use individually sourced numbers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's a fair point. But how do we accurately reflect the truth without doing that? The true number of fatalities can only be found by combining the various totals that are given in the article Casualties of the Iraq War only in separate forms. -- Fifty7 (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- As has been said many times, Wikipedia is not about WP:TRUTH or Truthiness (well, that hasn't been said many times), but about verifiability. I've removed statements from articles which are obviously true, but for which a single reliable source has not been found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's a fair point. But how do we accurately reflect the truth without doing that? The true number of fatalities can only be found by combining the various totals that are given in the article Casualties of the Iraq War only in separate forms. -- Fifty7 (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
unsourced BLP violations
Kindly describe which ones are unsourced, and how they violate BLP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_suppression
Dr Eugene Mallove, a proponent of Cold Fusion, was murdered in 2004 a few months after writing an open letter to the world requesting research funds for Cold Fusion and Zero Point Energy. [21]
Despite free energy suppression being labeled a conspiracy theory, events supporting this technology are held at MIT, such as "Cold Fusion Science and Technology with Special Tribute to Dr. Eugene Mallove at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology" [22]. A paper was presented at another MIT Cold Fusion Conference, which covered the "Hutchison Effect". [23]
John Hutchison, known for the Hutchison Effect, filed an official affidavit with the US District Court, Southern District of New York, in support of Dr Judy Wood's case alleging that directed energy weapons were a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/01. This case is represented by well-known attorney Jerry Leaphart. [24]
Complete Truth (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- The association of the murder with the "open letter"[21] is WP:SYN. I was wrong about WP:BLP, as there's no implication of a specific living person being involved. However, the connection is not made in Eugene Mallove, so probably shouldn't be made here.
- 24 is Judy Wood's web site, so is not reliable. We would need reliable secondary sources for all of:
- Hutchison filed an affidavit.
- Judy Wood's case is notable.
- That the case or affidavit is relevant to the topic. (The claim that the "Hutchison Effect" might be relevant to the topic doesn't support any of the text.)
- Some other notes about Hutchison might be appropriate in the article, as it appears he is a
fraudinventor who may have invented something he claims is suppressed. However, as Hutchison is living, and the statement is contraversial, WP:BLP applies.
- The second paragprah is WP:BIASed, even in the context of the article. [22] is either a personal website or a fringe publication, and is probably not acceptable as to the existance of the conference; and [23] may be acceptable as to the contents of the paper and the claim it was presented at MIT, but we really have no source that there was an MIT conference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- The wikipedia article on Mallove does make the connection between the paper and the murder. Check this section.
- Hutchison's affidavit for Dr Wood's court case is accessible via the PACER system. The court case's docket number is: 1:07-cv-03314-GBD
- The two cases that Leaphart is representing were vaguely mentioned in the New York Times. See here for quote and link to Times website.
- Why do you call Hutchison a
fraud? Should you be editing this article if you are biased?
- Why do you call Hutchison a
- In reverse order. I call Hutchison a fraud because he's believed to be one. See John Hutchison#Charges of fakery. But that doesn't mean his claims of free energy suppression might not be relevant to that article.
- There's no claim in your statement that Hutchison's affidavit is related to free energy suppression.
- The action affidavit is perhaps 1 of the 3 requirements (there still needs to be a secondary source that it's notable), and the NY Times reference would be at most one more. The relevance would still require a source.
- Neither the letter nor the sole reference in Eugene Mallove#2004 murder supports the theory that anyone but Hoagland thought there was a connection to the murder. I suppose you only need one "true believer" for it to be a conspiracy theory, though.
- — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Timeframe
If it were a word, it would be in dictionaries. I didn't find it in any, but did find 'time frame'. What problem do you have with 'time frame'? Chris the speller (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- wikt:time frame seems to think that both forms are equally good.
- Mirriam-Webster seems to think it an acceptable alternate.
- "Time frame" violates the manual of style at my employer, noting "timeframe" is preferred.
- But I suppose it doesn't really matter, as long as you're willing to change it back if Wikipedia consensus is that it's the preferred term. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- 1) Please don't ask me whether I consider Wiktionary a prestigious reference. 2) Looking at Merriam-Webster, it seems to be similar to a redirect from a likely misspelling; if you search for 'time frame' there, it does not offer 'timeframe' as an alternative. 3) Not knowing your employer, it is hard to judge its reasons for pushing a nonstandard spelling.
- I am not aware of any dictionary that prefers 'timeframe' to 'time frame', or even equates them. Correcting spelling in WP articles does not imply a willingness to reverse those corrections if WP consensus later changes to disregard established spellings. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your comments on your last change to the Steven E. Jones article....
Perhaps you take the editor's contributions a little too seriously?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.24.110.17
Wowest (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Please help!
I posted this on the Talk:Homeopathy Page:- TenOfAllTrades, Shoemaker......How can Homeopathy be the 'Fringe view' on the Homeopathy article? If that was the case, the article on 'Islam' should also be considered 'Fringe view' and the Criticism of Islam should be on the article on Islam rather than on the 'Criticism of Islam' Page. At WP:FRINGE, there is a section, titled, "Sufficiently notable for devoted articles", which mentions, 'Creation science', 'Apollo moon landing hoax', 'Time Cube' and 'Paul is dead' which are false allegations/rumours, so the allegations made by references 16 to 19 are not acceptable and so the whole of Para 2 must be removed from the 'Lead'. In fact, Para 1 is more than enough for an introduction.
- Is there something wrong with it? Shouldn't Para 1 alone suffice for the 'Lead'?—Homoeopath (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)