User talk:Arthur Rubin

Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post. This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 28 days are automatically archived to User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2024 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Status

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.

To Do list (from July block)

• Jay David Adkisson see if sources can be found for notability... (I doubt it, also.)
• Dasavathaaram; the movie illustrates/demonstrates what would best be called "coincidence theory", rather than chaos theory or the butterfly effect; that things and people once related to each other will interact again, perhaps in another incarnation. It's a little different than the law of contagion, but perhaps not significantly so.

2000s vandalism

Hi Arthur

Was quite surprised to see that you called my additions the 2000s decade page "vandalism". I think this is way too harsh Arthur. This term is generally reserved for people who deliberately cause damage to a page with inaccurate or misleading information - this was not the case and was certainly NOT my intention. If you disagree with additions to pages that you have an interest in you can simply begin a discussion with the person who wrote it or simply change it.

I was adding what I felt to be some useful background to flesh out what was already there. I felt that this was worthy of inclusion particularly as it was actual examples of where the Naughties word was used prior to the start of the decade - surely a worthy inclusion? If you wanted to remove it or question you can easily have messaged me or started a talk section. To call a simple addition "vandalism" upfront without taking any time to consider or question it, does not seem fair or in the Wikipedia tradition. Is there any way you would re-consier this? Would you like me to re-write it differently? Do you want to have a go at re-writing about what I added?  :-) Please advise. --Mapmark (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"Vandalism" may be a little harsh, but adding information removed by 3 different editors doesn't seem exactly colleagial. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:MathTopicTOC

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at Template talk:MathTopicTOC.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Cybercobra (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Userboxes

I know this is probably the wrong place to ask this but how do you get userboxes on your user page? Robo37 (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Only the babel-boxes are centrally located, but you can look on my page (the sections with {{userbox}}) for examples. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Geese with treats

Arthur, please don't remove anything that I wrote on the internet about greeting geese with treats. It won't hurt anyone. And when people see it, they'll stop and think "wait, did I just read that?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.176.189 (talk • contribs) 08:43, September 4, 2009

I didn't remove the geese. Please check to make sure your geese are in a row before commenting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

matrix exponential, Chinese Remainder Theorem

Dear Arthur Rubin,

On the history page ot the matrix exponential entry (see

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matrix_exponential&action=history )

you wrote:

"16:45, 5 September 2009 Arthur Rubin (Undid revision 311798547 by Milolance nonsense; the "obvious" statement, by the Chinese - Remainder Theorem, is false)"

Could you be more precise?

Yours,

Milolance (talk) 10:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

PS For your convenience I'm pasting the deleted text.

We shortly prove that the above definition of the exponential of X does make sense. We will work in a slightly more general setting. This will create no additional difficulty, and will be useful later.

Let B be a finite dimensional $\mathbb {C}$-algebra, let b be in B, let f be an entire function, and form the series

$\sum _{k\geq 0}\ {\frac {f^{(k)}(0)}{k!}}\ b^{k}.$

Our first claim is that this series converges. Denote its sum by f(b). Our second claim is that $f\mapsto f(b)$ is a $\mathbb {C}$-algebra morphism. Our third claim is that the derivative of f(tb) with respect to the real variable t exists and satisfies

${\frac {d}{dt}}\ f(tb)=b\ f'(tb)=f'(tb)\ b.$

We can assume that $B=\mathbb {C} [b]$ for obvious reasons, and also that there is a complex number a and a positive integer m such that (b-a)^m=0 by the Chinese Remainder Theorem. Then the above series is easily seen to converge to

$\sum _{k=0}^{m-1}\ {\frac {f^{(k)}(a)}{k!}}\ (b-a)^{k},$

and the three claims are clear.

— Milolance (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The result is false

which result? (For your convenience I pasted above the deleted text) — Milolance (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

if the polynomial has any repeated roots, and there's nothing modulo integers, so the CRT doesn't apply.

The link I gave is Chinese_remainder_theorem#Statement_for_general_rings. I was referring to the statement for general rings — Milolance (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, to be more precise, you left out a step involving ideals in the formal polynominal ring C[X]. As you didn't mention C[X], only C[b],

I identify C[b] to C[X]/(P), where P is the minimal polynomial of b, and apply the CRT (for general rings) to the ring C[X] and the ideal (P) — Milolance (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That identification is non-trivial. My comment below still stands, that "normed" is easier to work with than finite-dimensional. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the CRT argument is more elementary and gives you a method for computing f(A), but it applies to a less general setting than the norm argument. I'd be more than happy if the norm argument was inserted into the matrix exponential entry — Milolance (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

it's not clear to me what the step is nor whether this proof should be here.

Finally, the simplest proof the the power series converges works in any normed C- or R-algebra.

Don't you need a completeness assumption? — Milolance (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Why a GL(n,C)

Don't you mean M(n,C)? — Milolance (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

is normed is not immediately obvious, but that step is fairly short, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Axiom of choice articles

I felt that a certain part of this converastion should only continue on your talk page. You wrote:

I apologize for the WP:COI accusation; perhaps I'm too sensitive, but I don't feel comfortable editing complex relationships involving the axiom of choice where my parents are/were the expert. [...] Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that your restraint is commendable; especially since we lack articles on Herman Rubin and Jean Rubin (I assume you're referring to them). We have people in positions of power here that wrote puffery-laden biographies on their rather more obscure selves, as well as their parents. Some eventually got deleted, some are still around. I also avoided editing biographies or topics researched/engineered by people I've known personally in non-trivial contexts, except for one occasion where a piece of work was incorrectly attributed on this wiki to only one of two coauthors of a paper (the paper wasn't even cited). I feel however that this is a personal choice rather than directly mandated by some policy/guideline. Others are far less restrained. I also edited under my real name until I realized there are a bit too many crackpots editing here, and that I occasionally have to confront some of them... Pcap ping 16:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Generation F

Hello Arthur Rubin, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Generation F has been removed. It was removed by Jclemens with the following edit summary '(decline prod, already PROD'ed once)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Jclemens before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Jim Hawkins, BBC Radio Shropshire

I am the above named, and the subject of the page which you've been editing

A Wikipedia user, at my request, deleted the page about me. It's riddled with inaccuracies, and it's completely pointless. Why did you bring it back?

More amusingly, you seem to struggle to tell the difference between so-called 'vandalism' and actual facts about me

As the page is inaccurate, please return it to its deleted state ASAP

If you wish to discuss this, I can be reached at jim.hawkins@bbc.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.111.57 (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you can explain why the sources we had in place are not generally considered reliable, (being "incorrect" is not adequate reason for deletion), then the article should remain as it was. Of course, if you can provide reliable sources that the information presented in the article is incorrect, we can add that, also. Finally, you, and people editing at your request, should not edit your article, per WP:AUTO. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

After consideration, I removed the record label as being unsourced and not listed in google. However, the awards section seems adequately referenced, and arguably adequate for listing. If you wish to propose that the article be deleted, per WP:AfD, I'll assist you in preparing the nomination. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's still wrong, Arthur. I have no idea what WP:AfD means, but if you can get the article deleted, I'd be very grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.111.57 (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AfD = Wikipedia:Articles for deletion; we have a formal process for requesting deletion. Now, I don't know if you (as an IP-address editor) can complete step 2, but I believe you can. If you specify exactly the reasons you want the article deleted, I'll create a formal AfD request; if the reasons for deletion are considered to outweigh the reasons for not deleting the article, the article will be deleted after at least 7 days. It should also be noted that incorrect information which is not adequately sourced can be removed immediately, per the policy WP:BLP. I still think the Sony award section is adequately sourced, and leans toward keeping the article, but I won't comment in the deletion debate.

I need to head out now. I should be able to set up the deletion request within 2 hours, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Arthur; sorry I didn't get back to you last night. Can't we do this by email?

I want the article deleted because it's wrong, it keeps getting edited with further inaccuracies added, and as the subject of the article I don't see why it should exist at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.144.123 (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"For": The possible, the practical, and the likely

I gather from explanation of your edit in Generation Y [1] that you have not been the webmaster of a large online knowledgebase, or had access to its statistical usage reports. The idea that "everything might be useful to someone" does not take in account that inserting information, while useful to some, is unuseful to others. In fact, one of the main jobs of a knowledgebase editor is to direct the largest number of readers most efficiently to the information they seek.

It's unfortunate in several respects that Wikipedia's web stats are not available to editors. For example, as I've noted on my page, links in large websites are nowhere near as effective as people who are only familiar with the statistics of small websites imagine them.[2] Perhaps as an administrator you are in a position to at least get this statistical information for administrators?

In terms of {{for}} tagging, Wiki is strangely fortunate that more spammers and vandals haven't realized the opportunity for causing problems here. Generation Y was accessed 150,000 times last month.[3] Generación_Y was accessed no more than 250 times. And, if you will allow me an observation from years of webmastering, there's a good chance that not only were many of those page views redirected from "Generation Y", but that many of those redirected were uninterested in the material. Say, as a reasonable guess, 150 came from "Generation Y". That makes the ratio of readers who really meant to read "Generation Y" to those who were misdirected 1,000 to 1. It's far more likely (and again without statistical reports you may want to take my word) that readers who meant to type "Generation X" or "Generation Z" landed on the "Generation Y" page. I.e., in a professional situation, I would add "for" links not to the writer of a blog, but to "Generation X" and "Generation Z".

You see the trap. There's no easy way to guess how Wiki searchers are misdirected, this leads editors to add links which make the overall problem worse, while optimizing a small one. That's where the search function is appropriate, since search engine engineers are largely concerned with just such optimization.

Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Uri Geller Page

Please stop undoing the edit with ref the incorrect information on the youtube video. I have discussed this on the talk page, and I have cited a reliable source which backs this up - three times! Please see ref 72, or the link I have pasted three times into the talk page.

Eveything which has been written about this case is wrong, and it is proven with this source. The case - as described on the legal paperwork - was about a video which included Uri Geller's doctor, and was nothing to do with the compass clip.

Moondial (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It might be wrong, but it's in the reliable source exactly as stated. It should not be removed unless there are reliable sources to the contrary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternative search of parasitic numbers

Arthur, you think this section is orginal reserach? It is a simple mathematics to prove that it works! Try to look at this section that I added and repeating decimal again and examine the mathematics. It is very simple! Please post any discussion to my user talk page or Talk:Parasitic number. Thank you. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, all parasitic numbers are derived from repeating decimals. Can you find any that is not repeating decimals? If you can find one then I will agree to you deletion. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, obviously, any n-parasitic number corresponds to a period of a repeating decimal with denominator 10n−1, or to ${\frac {k}{10n-1}}\left(10^{m}-1\right)$ (although I'm not sure that k is less than 10.) I don't consider "derived from" as necessarily accurate. The construction in the lede doesn't use rational numbers directly at all, but reverse long division. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, if derived from is not accurate, then I repeat my sentence: As a matter of fact, all parasitic numbers are repeating decimals.

Kindly look at my construction. I could make it longer to include long division (as in repeating decimal section) to make it more obvious to the general public; or simplify the following up paragraphs. The fact is this construction is much simpler! I wish to add the section back.--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. To the extent your addition is correct, it's handled in the previous section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Which part is obsolutely wrong? Can you make it clearer? --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I'm curious why you called this diff a reversion of "vandalism". Maybe the see-also link wasn't sufficiently on-topic, maybe it wasn't, but it looked like a good-faith edit to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I clicked the wrong button. It was a spam-link, but not vandalism. Let me try to make amends. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

If you do not know the subject well, please kindly study before you start deleting others people hard work. The {main|Repeating decimal} has been kept at cyclic number article for four months and has met many users' approval. In fact, the cyclic numbers were brought out and described in Repeating decimal though without a proper heading long ago before other users created the article cyclic number. I think you have put in hard work for parasitic number and does not wish to see a simple approach proposed by other. What do I call that? --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You may just follow after me everywhere and undid all my work. What type of behavior is that? --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see your "simple" approach as being either simple or completely correct. What's wrong with the approach already there?
• {{main}} as a hat-note is correct, anyway; it means that the section is a summary of the article of which the note pointed to. I think a {{see also}} might be better, if that's the impression you want to get across.
• Yes, I did undo all your work which was incorrect or inappropriate. When I see errors made by an editor, I often check other related edits by that editor to see if similar errors were made. I checked each (sequence of) your edits before reverting them, to see if the article was better before or after the sequence. It's possible I would have found some intermediate edits as improvements to the article(s). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I approve the existing approach and add a second, simpler approach. You heart does not allow a second approach. Any persons who study the three subjects in details would agree with me that the other two are the sub-subjects of repeating decimal, except you who has special interest with parasitic number. You first disagreed that parasitic number is related to repeating number and refuse to link it to cyclic number. When you finally agreed, you refused to acknowledge that it is a sub-subject. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

1. None of cyclic number, parasitic number, nor repeating decimal are exactly sub-subjects of each other, because of the 0-convention on parasitic number for the first two. They have material in common.
2. Your rephrasing is (1) WP:OR and (2) neither simpler nor non-duplicative of the existing approach.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

you did not answer my question, my second approach is wrong? Ask a third party's opinion before you start deleting! What about the section heading? Do they make the article more confusing? Ask a third opinion!--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It is good pretext quoting WP:OR and start to delete another person's work. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Have a source? If not, it's WP:OR as we define it. However, the approach there is WP:OR, also, so I shouldn't have said that. Regardless, it's not simpler than the approach above, which does refer to repeating decimals. As I now posted on the Talk:parasitic number, I suggest a mathematical approach not using repeating decimals directly. I think perhaps this should be used instead of the approach now there, and some merger of your approach and the approach there as an alternative (but not necessarily simpler) alternative. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You have totally fogoten forgotten that the method is verifiable. It is easy to verify it. If you can't verify it does not mean other people cannot verify it. Your heart does not allow other people to edit the article. You quoted that you deleted it because my writing was wrong. You never pointed out my mistake. What is the mistake in 'simplified approach'? --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 05:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Verifiable, in this context, means that there is a source, not that we can derive it. And it's NOT simplified; it's more complex, and uses a different, unnecessarily complicated, mathematical method. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A new philosophy / approach is always thought as being complicated. It is however necessary to learn new thinking / tools / methods for a new perspective. Once the new technique has been mastered, we always have a broader perspective and do not necessarily think that it is complicated. Look at my approach, how many lines of mathematics do I need? Single line. The rest are just reasoning. One of my hobby was having fun with cyclic numbers when I was young, more than 30 years back. So I can claim that I know the subject well. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 07:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree that it's simpler; and I don't think you'll gain anything by arguing precedence with me, as I have published papers more than 40 years back. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Cylcic number is obviously a sub-topic of repeating decimal. So you still disagree with this fact. Sigh! Did you read User:Ling Kah Jai/Other cyclic permutations? Repeating decimal has explanation on the occurrence of all these numbers. Can the 'direct approach / algebra' explain why? Still not convinced? sigh! Why do we learn group theory, which is more complicated, beside algebra? Following your argument, there is no need for a man to acquire any knowledge, just fall back to whatever he knows. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Cyclic number is obviously not a sub-topic of repeating decimal, although it is related. As well say that cyclic number is a subtopic of primitive root, as there is a n-digit cyclic number if and only 10 is a primitive root modulo n. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If I continue to argue with you on the matter of topic and subtopic, it is your words against my words. It is more important for other people to judge. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Provided that:

1. my method is not wrong;
2. nor repetivierepetitive; and
3. it is verifiable;

then you shall not defy me to add in the method.--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Either you don't read repeating decimal or you read and don't understand. Sigh!--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Love Hewitt

Hi! Listen, can you please explain to me why the fact that jennifer sang the song used for the soundtrack of Sailor Moon is not appropriate? I added that beacuse I really think it makes part of her musical career and of course this element is verifiable, so I wanted to know why you reverted that edit. Waiting for an answer! :-) Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie Lee Jean Hewitt (talk • contribs) 10:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It didn't seem important. But, I probably won't remove it if you add it again, with a reference. (And, if, by chance, you are related to Ms. Hewitt, you shouldn't be editing the article.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.

This is to inform you that the removal of exceptions to the use of Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar 22:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Further to the RFC, a substantive change to wikipedia policy pages requires a lot more than four or five editors who happen to be on the page at the time agreeing to it. Policy changes need broad community consensus. Hence the RFC. See WP:CONLIMITED andWikipedia:Policy#Life_cycle, therefore this RFC provides an opportunity to say what you think is the best policy - and to test whether there really is consensus for a change like this. Xandar 22:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

350 (organisation)

Is there a reason why the list of prominent members, as sourced to the site 350.org, may not appear in the article? ► RATEL ◄ 01:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

We only have the organisation's word that they are members. I'm reminded of one of the 911 "Truth" organizations who listed people who may have questioned the mainstream analysis, but didn't actually support that organization's goals. But, even if we knew that these people really did support the organisation, the notability would still be questionable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I believe it violates WP:SELFPUB. — Spike (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Then how about "Some notable members of 350.org are xxxxx(cite), xxxxx(cite) and xxxxx(cite)." with cites being from RSes? ► RATEL ◄ 02:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems generally acceptable to me, but some editors are supplying sources about 350 which aren't RSs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I did a quick and dirty analysis of the verifiable references/citations that you may want to look at here. — Spike (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Arthur, I don't know if you have an axe to grind on the global warming issue or not, bec. I have not had time to look at yr edit history, but I'm asking that if you do, please to desist from further involvement in that page, or take no sysop actions there. If you are non-aligned and dispassionate, by all means continue. What this page does not need is a admin-denier who wants to minimise or camouflage this important issue. Please, this is not meant to give offence and if it doesn't apply, ignore it. ► RATEL ◄ 01:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Now I see this diff. Arthur, please, desist. ► RATEL ◄ 01:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I do have an axe to grind on the global warming issue, but it's a minor one. The results of the climate model haven't changed significantly since 1997, at which time the statistical analysis was clearly faulty, as could easily be seen by any applied mathematician or statistician.

Regardless of whether the analysis methods are now credible, the analysis estimating the CO2 "tipping point" being 350 ppm depends on the amount of methane and possibly of water vapor in the atmosphere, which also seems to have changed significantly since the industrial revolution. I don't buy it. I don't think an atmospheric scientist would buy it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure when it was decided that there were climate tipping points, but if there are 350ppm seems like a lowball estimate. (BTW, Hansen is an atmo sci who advocates 350.) -Atmoz (talk) 07:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

On the HAARP controversy

Hello Arthur Rubin,

You reverted two paragraphs, I (79.246.72.240 and 79.246.55.181) had added at the 15th of September to the article about the ionosperic heater facility near Gakona, Alaska (HAARP). You described Your change laconically:

'Not relevant to this article'

You further added a link to the WIKIPEDIA guideline 'Assume good faith'.

As I disagree with Your action - mostly on the quotation I added - I approach You here, in order to discuss the matter. I created an account for this purpose.

My intention is to add verifiable sources to the claim, that ionospheric heater facilities are funded for military purposes - which appears to be the main reason, why such research programs are the subject of passionate political controversies.

As I am a newcomer to WIKIPEDIA, it might be easy to send me first to basic guidelines, why You think, my contributions to that article were 'not relevant'.
But if the disagreement is not based on formal aspects alone, I want to hear a more detailed argumentation from Your side, why these quotations should not be added to this article.

In the meanwhile, I will add these quotations in question to the talkpage of that article.

Christophmahler (talk) 06:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is a disinformation program about a Russian dual use facility in Antartica relevant to a US base in the artic? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank You for Your quick reply !

I have not written about 'a Russian facility in Antarctica'. I wrote:

»The possible dual use of research and technology has been the target of disinformation campaigns before. The case against ionospheric research facilities reminds of the systematic exagerration of the Soviet military power by Team B in 1976.«

But I can see, that this paragraph does not help to clarify a possible military purpose of ionosperic heating facilities. The comparison expands the subject into another topic and appears almost like original research.
Therefore I can be content with leaving this paragraph aside.

Please have a look on the talk page of the article to see, why I would like to keep the second paragraph, which added a quotation from Klaus Dodds on ionospheric research programs and their relation to military communication. One major issue with this article seems to me the lack of verifiable sources and the resulting escalation of opposing views.

[4]

wtc collapse

Thankyou for your edit. I would say the following chaps are mainstream aren't they? [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.10.218 (talk • contribs) 01:05, September 18, 2009

Nope. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well they strike me as eminently qualified to pass judgement on the matter looking at their CV's. But by whom is the collapse theory accepted? NIST, FEMA, the mass media circus. People believe what they are told without believing what their eyes tell them. Nobody with a modicum of intelligence believes that wtc7 'fell down'. Danny Jowenko, Holland's leading controlled demolition ([[6]]) technologist with thirty years experience states the fact clearly: [[7]] 81.109.10.218 (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

2020s

Thanks for catching this. Missed it when I indef'd him. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

not vandalism

From the wikipedia pages: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, is not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism."

So when I add a youtube url on a page that is asking for expansion, that shows a person who is just mentioned talking on video, that would never be able to be called vandalism by any stretch of the imagination. More like the verification WP talks about in maintaining WP policy.

So please be so kind as to refrain from deleting my totally legitimate post, thank you.

I will be keeping copies of all this in case I need to contact WP directly if this is kept up.Veritee (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm still willing to consider it "good-faith", it's not legitimate. It's been removed by 2 other editors, not including the bot. Please refrain from adding it without consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

350

Nxxxn: Hello, This is Nxxxn. You undid a revision I made in the article 350 organization. You said that I gave 350's website and it contained a list and is non-RS. Even though a list from the website is given people can clearly see from the 350 website that the personalities given support 350. You are saying that for each person I have to give a different reference source. The reference source for majority of the people are in the 350 website. Many openly stated that they support 350 in the organization's website. You can remove the names of those people you are saying who does not support 350 and is not clear. Please let the name of the people who openly supported 350 be in the list I wrote. You can remove the personalities, whom you are saying have not clearly supported 350. While the reference website was given just below the heading then people can easily access and see that the personalities in the list are supporting 350. Let it be please!!! Remove the personalities who haven't clearly supported 350 according to the source!!! If, a specific RS for each name, then what if I include the same RS for all names? If so, I can write the website near all names as the RS for each. Then you can't say there is no RS for each name. Make the issue clear please!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nxxxn (talk • contribs) 19:01, September 19, 2009

I have many concerns...

• At least one person (then) on the list had stated that he supported the goal of 350 ppm, but not the organization.
• Including any living person on the list requires a separate reliable source, either clearly from the person in question, or from a reliable third-party source, under WP:BLP. WP:SELFPUB would normally allow an organization's web site to be a source for information about the organization, but subpoint 2 forbids including a list of supporters, solely sourced to the organization, if there is any question as to whether the individuals wish to be affiliated with the organization. Subpoint 4 is not really in serious question, although the one case mentioned above might make it not entirely certain.

I have other conceerns about the article, but those are my primary concerns about the list. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Nxxxn (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Arthur. But You are wrong. You said "At least one person (then) on the list had stated that he supported the goal of 350 ppm, but not the organization". It's false. Vandana Shiva said, "I am completely behind the 350 campaign...." Rajendra Pachauri said, "....I am fully supportive of [350ppm]. What is happening, and what is likely to happen, convinces me that the world must be really ambitious and very determined at moving toward a 350 target". From the words of almost all others it is clear that they support 350 organisation. Indirectly, almost all stated they support 350. Why should one say directly? Supporting the goal of 350 is supporting the organization. You can't say no to it. It's common sense. If one supports or praises the deeds of a person or the aims of a person then he/she is supporting the person. He/she will be then liking the person. Will be with the person. It's not compulsory and not even nice in some circumstences to say "I like you" or "I love you". Many of us do love our parents. But how many of us say we love them directly. Almost all of us show it from our deeds. In this particular issue, from the words of almost all the people in the list we know they are supporting 350.

You also said, an organization's website can be used as the RS for an issue concerning the organization. But why the website can't be used in this particular issue? The website itself is the reference source for many of the personalities in the list. It clearly shows that almost all support 350. Some other RSs are also available for some personalities.

If separate reliable sources are required as you said, then what if I use the same RS for all the names that the source clearly gives evidence for the issue?

Nxxxn (talk) 09:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Arthur, May I please have an answer for the above questions!!!

If 350.org and the person both confirm the association, then they could be listed. A separate reliable source, though would probably be needed to support the notability of the association. Neither 350.org nor the person in question would qualify as a reliable source for the notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Military demolitions

are of course controlled demolitions, they don't just drop bombs on bridges, for example. But of course, we report the most stupid arguments, as long as they appear in sources that are supposed to be reliable.  Cs32en  00:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Controlled demolition" implies (and our article implies) that they care about protecting adjacent structures. That's not the case for military demolitions, for the most part. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Controlled" simply means that the demolition is supposed to proceed in a pre-planned fashion. A number of non-military controlled demolitions take place outside of urban areas, where protecting adjacent structures is not an issue.  Cs32en  00:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

We have multiple definitions of "controlled demolition", it would appear; but, unless the source uses the word "conventional" or clearly implies "conventional", we can't use it there. And we can use the most stupid arguments, such as Jones's (at least as reported in the Deseret News) — they only need be in a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Britannica has been taken over by philosophers

It doesn't even have an article on mathematical logic, but surely enough has one on metalogic: [8], and one on formal logic [9]. Amongst the authors there is Hao Wang, but then he passed away a while back. Morton L. Schagrin is listed as "Department of Philosophy, SUNY Fredonia-Emeritus" on the ACM Portal. No idea who The Rev. G.E. Hughes is. Pcap ping 13:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Renewable energy

The problem was, the bot didn't do its job: Compare Revision history of Talk:Renewable energy with Revision history of Talk:Renewable energy/Archive_4. The problem may have been a bug in Miszabot which has been causing problems and/or the blacklisted link I found when I did the archiving manually.
—WWoods (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought I saw an archived section today, also. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Bazant paper

Hi Arthur,

Can you point me to the page where Bazant makes this statement in his paper?  Cs32en  13:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the (approximately) 8.4 is the correct number, so I'll fall back to "an order of magnitude". Thanks for pointing out the problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the sentence! Here's the diff from my initial edit, which was reverted. The main problem is that Bazant doesn't exactly specify how he calculated the energy that "could be absorbed by limited plastic deformation and fracturing in the lower part". The other question is how a very large part the potential energy of the upper part can be transformed into kinetic energy (acceleration), with the remaining part of the energy still large enough to (a) crush the lower part (b) eject large portions of the material horizontally. Also, the three-point buckling mechanism seems unlikely for the grid-connected core columns. Btw, we should include the Bazant 2008 paper in the article, some of the statements of the 2001/02 papers are not really up to date.  Cs32en  14:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you block a Carl Hewitt sock IP?

Special:Contributions/71.198.220.76 is trolling the talk page of Denotational semantics insisting we add some topic from a new paper of Carl Hewitt. The points raised are obscure and have been rejected by User:Sam Staton, and I agree with Sam's view. Carl appears to be using multiple IP addresses, so those may need a vacation as well; see this thread for obvious leads. I think my request is in accordance with the ArbCom post-case clarifications (you're probably aware of them, but just in case...) Pcap ping 20:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I may be considered "involved"; at least, my involvment was (as of last month) under review by an arbitrator. I think it best you find another admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know. If there's some on wiki discussion, could you point me to it? (Just curious, not doubting you.) As for the socks, I think I'll ask Ruud because he has some experience with those; I hope he's not considered involved as well... Pcap ping 21:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

GPO

Dear Arthur: Actually the United States Government Printing Office (GPO) is part of the Legislative Branch, under Congress. There are very few agencies that are part of the Legislative Branch, with others being the Library of Congress, the Government Accountability Office (formerly the General Accounting Office), the Architect of the Capitol, and so on. Your instinct is right, though: the vast majority of federal government agencies are indeed part of the Executive Branch. Yours, Famspear (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Calling both Lord Arthur the Admin and Sir Arthur, the Years Guru

Arthur, take a look at this. I guess this kid decided to be bold, and he changed the name back, not knowing that there was consensus for the title he moved. But what is worse is that it looks like he may have allowed for two versions of the articles to continue existing. I.e., both 2000s (decade) and 2000-2009 now have their own, temporarily identical articles, which will now fork if all is not put to rights. And that, my good man, is what I hope you will do. Cheers! Unschool 18:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I was afraid of that. I'm afraid he also changed the protected year nav templates, so this might be considered a wheel war, but I'll see what I can do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not duplicated. Both 2000s (decade) and 2000-2009 redirect to 2000–2009 (with an ndash). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No protected templates involved, and  Done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Error in template

Dear, Arthur. Please, look at this. 2000s has link to page 20000–20009, but not 2000–2009 (in fact, 2000s (decade)). This also applies to 1800s, 1900s, etc. I sure that Template:EstablishmentsInDecade has error. Please, fix it, since you, unfortunately, don't accept my corrections. James Michael 1 (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think perhaps, my latest change takes care of it for the moment. Using the proper subfunction of the {{year nav}} template might be even better. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

OK Thanks. James Michael 1 (talk) 03:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Theorem of repeating decimal

I wish to refer you to Talk:Repeating_decimal#Theorem of repeating decimal. What is your opinion?--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Bianca Jagger

Hi, Arthur! The edit by 99.54.137.148 that you reverted in the Bianca Jagger article does not appear to be vandalism but a poorly worded statement. If you check 350's site per the citation, you'll see Ms. Jagger among the organization's supporters, who are in fact referred to as "Messengers." Hoping you don't mind, I'll revert your revert and also fix the statement, including determining where it would fit best. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not precisely vandalism, but it is both inadequately sourced (Bianca or a third party needs to confirm the association; considering the lies their supporters are posting here, it's not that much of a stretch to assume the organization lists people as supporters without consulting them) and not necessarily releant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I do, hereby, demand full, complete, handicappism review of three years of edit & policy. Your racism, handicappism, must end, now.

Platinum Star

Hi

I have checked your contributions and the time you have spent with Wiki, and given you Platinum Star.

Cheers, Lamro (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Virtual training

Hello Arthur Rubin, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Virtual training has been removed. It was removed by Pohta ce-am pohtit with the following edit summary '(Appears notable enough see http://books.google.com/books?q=%22virtual+training%22&btnG=Search+Books. Take to AfD instead.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Pohta ce-am pohtit before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

unexplained CFS editing

Hi - I believe it was you who removed a para I added to the CFS page. Can you indicate any reason for your edits? They were rather odd as you deleted my contribution without explanation. This is odd since: 1. The WHO info I included has not been debated 2. It doesn't make sense to include the info on the original ME further down the page (and as it has no separate page, it's impossible to just link to it). It's important to make it clear right at the top that the original ME has vastly different criteria to the current CFS criteria, since otherwise ppl might form the opinion right from the 1st para that CFS=ME and might stop reading a few paras later, before encountering any later evidence indicating the contrary. Since, as you may know, there are some treatments for CFS that are known to be positively harmful for M.E. (such as GET), it is extremely important to try our best to prevent that happening. 210.79.21.2 (talk) 04:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

At best, the conclusion the CFS and ME are distinct is WP:SYN, even if it's correct. You would need to find a WP:RS that specifically states that they are different. In fact, even if what you wrote above is precisely correct, we wouldn't know thay were different — all we could say is that the original criteria for ME are different than the current criteria for CFS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Me: Some of the links I used contained info from doctors who have studied M.E. closely and describe it as having clinical features that are very different from those supported by the current CFS criteria. It's also undisputed, AFAIK, that the original criteria for ME differ from those currently used for "CFS", "CFS/ME", CFIDS, etc (and, obviously, different clinical features = different diseases). Nevertheless, I will rewrite the offending para and remove descriptions from it about "CFS" that go beyond those currently existing on the Wikipedia page, with the exception obviously of retaining the remark that "CFS" has no classification in WHO ICD-10. 210.79.21.2 (talk)210.79.21.2 (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Billon

Hi. I have fixed some incoming links to Billon; fewer than 20 remain. Some of the links are in context that suggests the people writing those article don't know billon is an alloy. --Una Smith (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I'll take a look at them, also. Is Billon a sufficiently credible disambiguation page that AWB's disambiguation function will work on it? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't use AWB; let me know how it works for you. --Una Smith (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

My edit summary.

Just a tad. Maybe. . . . O.K., my summary went overboard. I guess I was in a bad mood and the various nutjobs and their theories had gotten on my nerves. I'll try to play nicer in the future. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 22:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)