User talk:Glrx

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Welcome!

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

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ray^Talk 19:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Analog to digital converter

Hi, you made a somewhat ambiguous edit to this article and I'd like to know what your reasoning is. You disagreed with "The resolution of the converter ... determines the magnitude of the quantization error" and changed that to say "determines the lower bound". Can you explain what you meant by that remark? Are you thinking of nonuniform sampling strategies? Or something else?18.62.28.248 (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem

Hi Glrx, in MHP you just changed
"As each one has 1/3 chance on the car, the combined chance for door 2 and door 3 to hide the car is 2/3." to:
"As each door has 1/3 chance of hiding the car, the combined chance for the other two doors hide the car is 2/3."
What is better:
... the combined chance for the other two doors to hide the car is 2/3. or:
... the combined chance for the other two doors to be hiding the car is 2/3. or:
... the combined chance that the other two doors are hiding the car is 2/3. ?
Regards, Gerhardvalentin (talk) 08:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I messed up. I would use option 4, "As each door has 1/3 chance of hiding the car, for the combined chance that^optional the other two doors hide the car is 2/3." English is a screwy language that has many other possibilities. Your three versions are OK (and better than my original), but option 3 is best because it is simple and direct. My option 4 is more direct than your option 3 ("hide the car" rather than "are hiding the car").

The sentence is still contorted. However, Nijdam reverted my edit and wants to keep the door numbers explicit.

Glrx (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, regrettably. And the given FACT that – after the guest irrevocably did select one still closed door out of three, then (before any further action occurs) – because just only ONE of any TWO unchosen still closed host's doors (out of three) necessarily hides one goat for sure – his other one, whichever it may be, consequently has a risk to contain a (second) goat too is only 1/3, is called "nonsense" by him. Scaring, imho. Thanks and regards, Gerhardvalentin (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Please Glrx could you have a look to the Introduction? – Imo it can help the average reader to understand the MHP-paradox. Nijdam opposes. Can you give your opinion on the talk page? Thanks Gerhardvalentin (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it gives to much weight to M., but I'm indifferent. Glrx (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Glrx (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Block cipher modes of operation

Hi Glrx, in Block cipher modes of operation you reverted my It-extraposition of a sentence.

"It-extraposition is said to be preferable stylistically" when non-extraposed sentences sound awkward (Wekker, H., and Haegeman, L. A Modern Course in English Syntax. Routledge, 2009).

To anwers your question: what is "it" in "it requires"?

"[...]it in extraposition and cleft sentences, has been judged in different ways. Halliday and Hasan [...] treat it in extraposition as having cataphoric reference, i.e. referring forwards in the text, and being "structurally determined". Quirk et al. [...] treat it in cleft sentences as an empty prop word and consider extraposition as a purely syntactic operation (Thavenius, C. 'Referential "it" in spoken English.' Proceedings of the 5th congress of l'association internationale de linguistique appliquee. Eds. Savard, J.G. and Laforge, L. Laval: University of Laval Press, 1988: 457).

To draw an example from a similar sentence:

Original it-extraposed:

Even acupuncture, if not supported with self-help strategies, will only provide temporary relief. It requires a more comprehensive approach to learn how not to attract so much tension-dandruff from your surroundings and then how to brush it off efficiently on a daily basis.

Modified non-extraposed:

Even acupuncture, if not supported with self-help strategies, will only provide temporary relief. To learn how not to attract so much tension-dandruff from your surroundings and then how to brush it off efficiently on a daily basis requires a more comprehensive approach.

Source: http://stillmountain.com/writings/wisdom-medicine/imagine-a-life-without-headaches.html

The sentence in question from Block cipher modes of operation: ECB, CBC, OFB, CFB, CTR, and XTS modes only provide confidentiality; to ensure an encrypted message is not accidentally modified or maliciously tampered requires a separate message authentication code such as CBC-MAC.

The ending is very concrete. I would be expecting something like "to ensure an encrypted message is not modified several factors have to be taken into consideration". "Infinitives are often used when actions are unreal, abstract, or future."

So I think the use of a non-extraposed infinitive here is grammatical but awkward.

Maybe other factors come into play which I haven't considered, but my main reason for the it-extraposed version is that it's easier to read (Motivation). En.gravious (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I don't consider the edit a big deal. I thought about leaving your last edit in place, but I ultimately reverted it because I believe the first is better. If I had realized that you had only 4 edits on WP, then I would have let it stand. I don't want to make you feel unwelcome here. Given the depth of your research above, I fear I have hit a nerve. I regret that.

In the article, I reverted your earlier edits that claimed to be grammar fixes. The edits further complicated a heavy sentence by breaking a disjunction with commas, ending with a preposition, and moving to passive voice. Forgive me, but I do not see those changes as improvements.

After I reverted, you reworked the same sentence. The edit in question is this one. You changed

ECB, CBC, OFB, CFB, CTR, and XTS modes only provide confidentiality; to ensure an encrypted message is not accidentally modified or maliciously tampered requires a separate message authentication code such as CBC-MAC.

to

ECB, CBC, OFB, CFB, CTR, and XTS modes only provide confidentiality; it requires a message authentication code such as CBC-MAC to ensure an encrypted message is not accidentally modified or maliciously tampered.

To me, the original (first sentence above) reads better than the second. It tells the reader the block cipher modes provide only confidentiality. The clause suggests something beyond confidentiality may be desired. The sentence then tells us that ensuring against modification or tampering is such a desirable feature. That's not a surprise or a big step. The sentence then offers a MAC as a solution to that problem. That's a logical progression. No forward references. No mysteries.

The second sentence does not have the same storytelling. It gives a solution (MAC) and a confusing specialization (CBC-MAC that seems a lot like CBC and suggests that a MAC is a small twist) before the sentence has stated the problem being solved. The sentence lost the notion of a separate MAC. Adding the extraposed-it did not help the storytelling because it transposes the problem and solution. "It" could also refer to a chaining mode or an encrypted message.

That said, your sentence, the second sentence, is not outrageous. Both sentence get the facts across.

I have some technical reservations about the topic. The sentences talk about an "encrypted message", and some modification/tampering can turn the remainder of the encrypted message to gibberish for some modes. That offers some protection to accidental modification. Furthermore, a MAC is usually an add-on to a clear-text message. The MAC might use a shared secret (so the attacker could not generate a good MAC for his tampered message; that method was done in bank wire transfers), or the MAC might use a known/public hash algorithm but provide signed MAC (so the attacker could not provide an alternate MAC). Error correction is an alternative to the problem of accidental modification.

If it is any consolation, both the above acupuncture examples are horrible runons using a bad metaphor. My English teachers would trash both. I would stay away from applying the it-extraposed transformation to any sentence.

A better version (ignoring technical issues) would be

The block cipher modes ECB, CBC, OFB, CFB, CTR, and XTS provide confidentiality, but they do not protect against accidental modification or malicious tampering. Modification or tampering can be detected with a separate message authentication code.

These sentences break the ideas down, avoid a central disjunction, avoid "encrypted message", and omit the CBC-MAC collision. They don't do a good job of explaining why how the MAC works.

Glrx (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Glrx,

Thanks for the extensive explanation. My native language is Dutch and have edited Dutch articles with another account which for some reason can't be used to login to the English wikipedia. I made my first edits to the sentence in question because the sentence sounded awkward to me, and I was convinced there must be something grammatically wrong with it. So I asked around for the correctness of similar sentences and got carried away with the theoretical background. I then reworked the sentence in another attempt to improve readability which is very subjective as I've now learned. Your proposal of a better version I think improves readability. As for the reference to CBC-MAC; it is one of the oldest and most popular MAC algorithms. Probably good to mention but a confusing name. The MAC is calculated by encrypting a plaintext into a ciphertext in CBC mode and then using the last ciphertext block as the MAC, discarding the other blocks.

So I'd like to suggest to change the sentence to:

The block cipher modes ECB, CBC, OFB, CFB, CTR, and XTS provide confidentiality, but they do not protect against accidental modification or malicious tampering. Modification or tampering can be detected with a message authentication code such as CBC-MAC.

Removing separate, because:

• the authenticated modes use an integrated MAC
• if I add a MAC to the ciphertext before encrypting with a non-authenticated mode (ECB, CBC, OFB, CFB, CTR, and XTS) I can detect tampering even though the MAC is not separate.

The sentence could become:

Modification or tampering can be detected with a separate or integrated message authentication code such as CBC-MAC.

Which is equal to:

Modification or tampering can be detected with a message authentication code such as CBC-MAC.

This may be serious nitpicking but why keep separate in if it's not a requirement? It seems didactically unsound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by En.gravious (talk • contribs) 14:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Another thing that caught my attention is the plural "modes of operation" in the first sentence of the article:

In cryptography, modes of operation is the procedure of enabling the repeated and secure use of a block cipher under a single key.

Plural here seems to me to be either incorrect or unnecessary. NIST defines Mode of operation as An algorithm for the cryptographic transformation of data that features a symmetric key block cipher algorithm (NIST IR 7298 and NIST SP 800-38C).

Thanks again for your kind consideration,

En.gravious (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

These discussions should happen at Talk:Block cipher modes of operation instead of my talk page.

We have a different notion of what separate means. I'm not stuck on the word, but a MAC is a distinct idea from a block cipher mode. Adding a MAC to the plaintext before using a mode is a separate step. Integrating the two ideas into one procedure may blur the lines, but the notion of generating and checking the MAC is still there.

I agree they are different ideas, but wouldn't consider that in dispute if the word separate wasn't there. The wording "with a separate message authentication code" to me at least when reading the sentence could suggest that "the block cipher modes ECB, CBC, OFB, CFB, CTR, and XTS" already have a MAC, but if you want to detect "Modification or tampering" you will need a _separate_ MAC.

The grammar is incorrect: "modes ... is the procedure" does not match subject and verb. Deeper than that, the meaning of the sentence is horrible. The modes describe different procedures for using a block cipher. Those procedures do not enable the repeated and secure use of a block cipher. ECB is an obvious mode, but it has the problem that identical blocks of plaintext produce identical blocks of ciphertext. Other modes allow the introduction of an IV (a little more security) and chaining (so identical blocks of plaintext do not produce identical blocks of ciphertext).

The sentence has already been modified by other interested Wikipedians.

Glrx (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I took the liberty of changing the second paragraph of History and standardization with separate and such as CBC-MAC.

En.gravious (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Quicksort Python anti-example

The code you've reverted [1] did not actually pass a recursion depth counter through the calls, but simply incremented a counter on each call. The counter was external to the recursive routine, so it simply counted all recursive calls, not the calls on some specific (supposedly: the longest) path of calls. That's why it returned 11 calls for 6-items list. Regards, CiaPan (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the table it produced claimed recursion depth was 11. The code was not needed, and its claims were wrong. Glrx (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Copylink vio

Not about an email but rather me leaving a warning on his talk page

Hi Girx. Thanks for your email with respect to Discrete cosine transform. I was unaware of this copyright issue. I've made the necessary correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jogfalls1947 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 28 April 2013

No, you don't understand. Otherwise, you would not have reinserted the WP:COPYLINK violation as you did here. Glrx (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Girx. My apologies. I thought you were referring to Discrete cosine transform, and not my Sandbox. It has no reference to the pertinent PDF file now. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jogfalls1947 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 29 April 2013

I was referring to both; the link is a copyright violation no matter where it is placed. Glrx (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

AE

RE: Comments concerning Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive134#Dicklyon

Thanks for your comments at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. None of us are paid to edit, and it is wonderful to see so many participants helping to maintain Wikipedia. I am not here to be insulted, I am here to make corrections. I do not appreciate being called out anywhere for anything, other than on my talk page, which is the only place those comments belong. There are two methods of decision making, consensus and parliamentary. We use consensus (sort of). With both methods, discussion is never directed to the participants. With consensus it is always directed to the group. With parliamentary it is always to the speaker/moderator. What to do with me? Remove the restrictions, which are severely impacting my ability to assist with the development and maintenance of Wikipedia, thank me for my participation, and go back to editing. Nothing more, nothing less. Apteva (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Subsequent history: Apteva's topic ban was clarified/extended as a result of the AE action against Dicklyon. Apteva appealed the extension at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive135#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Apteva, but it was declined. Apteva then brought Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive798#Dicklyon; the result was Apteva was blocked for one month. Apteva's second unblock request was declined.

IBM 704 index registers

Why did you change "index register" to "decrement register" in the IBM 704 article? The IBM 704 manual calls them index registers as do the manuals of successor machines, 709 7090, 7094 etc. You can see the word "index" under the display lights on the console in the top photo. As far as I know (perhaps there is an earlier example) the term index register arose with this machine. --agr (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

My edit was for readability. Index register was used in one sentence and "decrement register" in the next. A reader would have to take "index register", the notion of "subtracted from", and put them together when reading "decrement register". Furthermore, the term "decrement register" is used in other parts of the article. ("There were conditional jump operations based on the values in the decrement registers specified in the tag field.") Part of an instruction is the "decrement". Clearly the registers are index registers, IBM says they are used for indexing operations, but the article often refers to them as decrement registers. Do you know what the common usage was? Glrx (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I understand why you did it. But the term "displacement register" should not be used at all in the article except maybe in the discussion of the LISP command cdr. The three 15 bit registers were always called index registers. The displacement was a field in some instructions, and by extension a field within each 36 bit word. I think I've straightened things out, but another pair of eyes is always welcome.--agr (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Notation Reed-Solomon Codes / Forney algorithm

Hi,

The notation of Reed–Solomon error correction#Error locator polynomial and Forney algorithm is not consistent. I believe that many readers of the latter article will be coming from the former and furthermore I think it will benefit the average reader if consistent notation is used. Specific differences:

• General purpose index: R-S: $k$. Forney: $i$
• Coefficients of $\Lambda (x)$: R-S: $\Lambda _{k}$. Forney: $\lambda _{i}$. I personally prefer the latter because it follows the general convention for polynomial coefficients. However, all the literature I've come across concerning Reed-Solomon codes has used the upper case Lambda.
• Indices of generator polynomial roots: R-S: $1,\ldots ,n-k$. Forney: $c,\ldots ,c+d-2$. Even if the offset $c$ is taken into account, it is still inconsistent.

Conquerist (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The material in the articles comes from a variety of sources, so I would not expect consistency in the notation. I'd also expect efforts to impose some local consistency; new additions to an article would attempt to follow existing notation rather than follow the new source's notation. For example, Gill uses b when others use c. Some of the notation in a particular article may derive from an early, original, source.

Your edit changed lower case λ to upper case Λ in the formula, but it did not change to upper case Λ in the text.

• I have no problem with using consistent notation, but it must be carefully done because it can cause damage. Index i is usually the position in the message polynomial; index k is usually the errors; i_k the position of the k-th error. Of course, k is also used in the general code description (n, k) for the number of information words, so there is a built-in collision in variable names.
• Don't forget the BCH code article; it uses lower case lambda for the error location polynomial, so that would say the RS article is the odd man out on WP. In a quick check, I only found Λ: Gill uses Λ; Hong 1995 uses Λ; Matache uses Λ; I don't have Peterson handy. I would expect the formula came from a source that used λ, but your observation seems to be correct. There were many problems with the error correction explanations (especially when erasures are considered), and a few years ago I was looking at many different sources with slightly different notation (and slightly different algorithms). I have a dim memory of the article notation being confused, but I think I would have changed things to follow Gill. I think another editor substantially reworked some error correction explanations. Also, many sources use simple fields (GF(2^m)) and thus misleading formulas (such as missing minus signs or assuming c=1).
• I don't follow the indices argument. The sequence is the exponents of the generator roots. If c=1 (which simplifies Forney's equation), then the sequences match if n−k=d−1. The minimum distance d for RS/BCH codes is n−k+1; to correct 1 error (t=1), one needs two check characters (n−k≥2) and a minimum distance of 3 (if d were 2 and the message code word had one error, then two code words would be one change away, so the error could not be corrected; if d were 3, then the correct code word is one change away and all other code words are at least two changes away).

If you find errors, please correct them.

I have no objection to (1) making the notation more consistent and (2) following the notation of the majority of sources. Before making large changes to the notation, you might raise the issue on the article talk page first. There are many sophisticated people watching the pages.

Glrx (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Renaissance Emir (new book on Fakhr ad-Din Ma'n)

Hello Glrx, I notice that you have removed every instance of my trying to add a reference to a valuable new book about this gentleman. The book corrects many misunderstandings about his role in history, which was important for both the Ottoman Empire, the nascent country of Lebanon, and his Medici hosts as well as Pedro de Tellez-Giron, Viceroy of Sicily and then Naples, with whom he spent 3 years and was involved with him in important political events regarding relations with the Ottomans. He was the first non-Christian Levantine to live in Europe and this in itself is significant (not just a question of "hosting"). I am sure you are trying to bring clarity or consistency or remove extraneous references, but I am afraid the edits in question do not achieve any of the above. There is a lot of fuzzy writing and misinformation in the articles on both the Druze and Lebanon, which I am endeavoring to correct bit by bit. For instance the reference to Fakhr ad-Din in the Lebanon article says (absolutely wrongly) that he was executed "by hanging", and there is a footnote to "Photographs in History" (Arabic) – sixth edition 1999", which has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject. I respectfully suggest that your energies might be put to more positive use in correcting such nonsense than in simply removing references I have inserted in logical places in order to shed light on an important figure in the various contexts where he spent his life.

I hope you will take this in the positive spirit in which it (and my edits) are intended Tobias Homer (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not remove every instance of the book. You inserted the book into a large number of further reading sections. The book is recently published, and the effort seemed to be more about advertising the new book than improving WP. Most of your edit history is inserting mention of the new book or details about the book. Your addition at Druze further reading was the third mention of the book in the article. IIRC, I left the book in the article on the Emir (moving it from an external reference, which it is not, to a further reading section); the book is about the that article's subject. However, I removed the book from further reading sections in other articles where it did not seem significant. For example, I suspect there were many visitors to the Medici court, so I do not see why most WP readers interested in the Medici would be interested in one particular visitor who may not have been mentioned in the article. The Medici covered much more than one generation, and the exiled Emir's presence seems of little consequence to the Medici. Using the book as a reference for particular statements in articles (rather than just list it as further reading) is more appropriate, but I think you only did that in one article out of about eight where you inserted information about the book. There was such an addition to an article about an Italian (Pedro) that appropriately used the book as a reference rather than further reading, but I removed that addition because it merely stated the Emir had stayed with the Italian for a few years; there was no claim to the significance of the stay, and the citation did not support any important political events as you suggest above. If you know of nonsense/factual errors in articles, then you should correct those errors and supply sources or at least tag them with {{citation needed}} or {{dubious}} or {{verification failed}}. Your addition of a URL and ISBN for a book in the further reading section of the Lebanon article does nothing to correct an execution-by-hanging statement or a faulty footnote. WP welcomes sourced additions of appropriate material. If you want the book included in the further reading sections of articles, I'd suggest you get a consensus for the addition on the articles' talk pages. WP:BRD Glrx (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure how to reply to your reply, hence this edit. I am relatively new to active Wikipedia participation and do not know all the tricks of the trade, but have been trying to improve articles on subjects I do know about. I note that it is more acceptable to you (as ?official/?self-appointed) judge of what is right and wrong in WP articles, that I insert content and cite the source, whether it is the new book about Fakhr ad-Din or something else, rather than just trying to improve the Further Reading sections as I have done, something you judge to "seem in advert". I would have thought that new books very germane to the subject of an article are positive additions to the Further Reading sections. Therefore I will try and find the time needed to correct some of the errors and tendentious statements in the articles of interest to me, and cite my source(s) accordingly. I do not know how to go about getting a consensus for additions on the articles' talk pages, but will suggest what I think makes sense and let you undo it if that amuses you. However I will certainly give up on trying to improve WP articles if that happens again. btw Pedro de Tellez-Giron was a Spaniard (Viceroy in fact), as a cursory reading of the WP article would have shown, and the book on Fakhr ad-Din sheds precious light on his time in both Sicily and Naples, as the Emir had a scribe who wrote down everything the Viceroy said and did in his presence. Tobias Homer (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Your reply is fine. I don't want to discourage you from contributing to WP. However, I do not see WP as intending to provide an exhaustive bibliography so any new book should be added to Further reading sections no matter how remote the connection. WP is an encyclopedia. See the WP:Further reading guide. Our notions of what is germane differ, but that does not mean I'm right. You get a WP:CONSENSUS on a talk page by doing the same thing you did here: start a new section on the article talk page and start talking about what you want to do. Glrx (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Glrx. I am glad to see we are not going to get huffy in trying to (1) improve WP and (2) (in my case) let the world know about my new book, the result of several years of research. I really think it brings new light on several important contexts, from the Ottomans (relations with vassal-states in the Arab world) to the Medici (relations with the Levant when the Tuscans were trying to get a foothold in what had been a French preserve) to the Druze (some very surprising behaviour on the part of their most famous prince). I will work on the text of some of the relevant articles, and cite my sources, and hopefully not get up your nose any more. Best regards Tobias Homer (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Since you admit to being the author of the book and that you have a goal of letting "the world know about my new book" (advertising), then you must be especially careful about inserting references to it. See WP:COI and WP:Further reading#Conflicts of interest (admonishing authors to avoid inserting their books in Further reading sections or engaging in WP:Bookspam). Glrx (talk) 03:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Toluene Article

Toluene is used in the synthesis of the antipsychotic drug Haloperidol wherein Heating 4-chloro-1-(4-fluorophenyl)butan-1-one with 4-(p-chlorophenyl)piperadine-4-ol in presence of potassium iodide as catalyst and toluene as solvent affords [[4-[4-(4-chlorophenyl)-4-hydroxy-1-piperidyl]-1-(4-fluorophenyl)butan-1-one]] also called Haloperidol brand name Haldol.

Glrx..... Why are you defending the removal of this edit from this article when it is a genuine use of this chemical and has a reference. The only thing I can see that removing it serves is special interests that want to keep such things a secret. 2602:306:C518:6C40:D5B6:C1CD:4D8E:9B53 (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed the edit because I think the application is too narrow for the article. Two different editors removed it before I did,[2][3] but you reverted both of them. I reverted you a third time and left a WP:3RR warning on your talk page. If you believe the material should be in the article, then it falls to you to start a discussion at Talk:Toluene and get a consensus to include it. See WP:BRD.

That a statement is sourced does not guarantee that it should be included in an article. Reporting every application of a common chemical would bloat an article and make it read like a laundry list.

The synthesis may be appropriate at the Haloperidol article, but I take no position about its inclusion.

However, I'd be careful. Your mid-sentence capital-H "Heating in presence of potassium iodide as catalyst and toluene as a solvent affords" shows a cut-and-paste WP:COPYVIO of the cited source. If you cut and paste, then you must use quotation marks.

Glrx (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. 2602:306:C518:6C40:D5B6:C1CD:4D8E:9B53 (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Subsequent history. Talk:Toluene#Toluene as used to make Haldol Should be added to Uses Glrx (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Streisand effect removal

Hello. I see that you've removed some material from Streisand effect noting that there was discussion before on the veracity of the event. If you can point to me in the talk page of the article where this discussion is, either in it's current form or in the archives of said talk page, I would be most appreciative and understand your edit. Otherwise, I will revert back the content given the deletion was done under false pretenses as it does meet notability requirements outlined in Wikipedia. Thank you.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed your insertion of the Buzzfeed event.[4]

For the previous reverts re Buzzfeed, see the edit comments for SE in February.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] The page was protected to stop the edits.[12]

Those removals were done for a several reasons. The list of SE examples frequently gets new events that end up being deleted. Several of the February deletions were because no RS had termed the Buzzfeed event a Streisand effect at that time. Even if there are RS for SE, the list is intended as some illustrative examples; it is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all SE. In the grand scheme of things, the event does not seem to have any long term effect or interest.

Although some label it as SE, I do not see that fact pattern. BuzzFeed posted some pictures. BK asked that some (not all) images be removed. BK's email politely requested the photos be removed; BK did not dispute BuzzFeed's right to show them; BK did not threaten dire consequences; BK did not file a lawsuit. Instead of merely refusing the request, Buzzfeed published the email to exploit the situation. It was an ad campaign for Buzzfeed. There was no David-and-Goliath aspect; no somebody is trying to do something good or innocent and some powerful figure comes along to crush it. It doesn't have a big human interest element.

That the event happened is not at issue. The issue is not just WP:N.

If you want the incident included, then bring it up on the article's talk page. That is the course for any revert. WP:BRD

Glrx (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Oopsie

I did not see that that was closed, my bad. Thanks for removing my misplaced comment.--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Glrx (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk: Battle of the Atlantic

You may be able to help over the dispute about Enigma rotors. --TedColes (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Battle of the Atlantic#Rotor craft Glrx (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Eric Grimson

Background: Tumbultaaron added material to Eric Grimson; it was removed as a BLP violation[13] by User:Silvrous who also left a talk page warning.[14] Tumbultaaron readded the material, and I reverted[15] and left a talk page message.[16] Tumbultaaron reverted[17]. I reverted[18] and left 3rr and BLP warnings.[19] Tumbultaaron reverted yet again[20] and left the 3rr warning below. Glrx (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Eric Grimson shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Tumbultaaron (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect in your background documentation: Please correct these sources accordingly. The material that was removed by User:Silvrous is not the same as the one that was added later on. The material pertaining to Aaron Swartz and Eric Grimson are well known and documented. I can add more references if need be, but that should not be necessary at this point. You seem to be wanting to engage in an edit-war so as to keep hiding the truth. By properly documenting and references facts and figures, I have not committed any wrong doing. Tumbultaaron (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You need to supply better references for BLP material. Blogs and wikis are not acceptable; you have already half-way acknowledged that your current sourcing is unsatisfactory.[21] You should self-revert your reinsertion at Eric Grimson and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. WP:BRD Glrx (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not already half-way acknowledged anything. I made an observation about something. And I have supplied an additional references that documents Eric Grimson's involvement. Note, that as Chancellor of the university, he is responsible for leading these investigations anyhow. this is public knowledge, just like Grimson's and Abelon's long time friendship is. Tumbultaaron (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, Tumbultaaron's edits violate WP:BLP through their non-neutral tone, it is clearly skewed against the subject of this article. Also, the provided references only tangentially refer to Grimson, making this seem like original research on his part. The controversy can, of course, be mentioned, but in a neutral tone, using a language that properly expresses that this is the opinion that some hold, not a fact. Silvrous ^Talk 11:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Subsequent history. Rather than continuing to revert, I raised the issue at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive178#Eric Grimson to get other eyes; the edit was removed. Tumbultaaron persisted, and User talk:Tumbultaaron's history shows many interactions (lots of warnings were removed). There were two topics at ANI, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive798#Outing and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive798#Talk:Eric Grimson needs eyes, that resulted in Tumbultaaron and User talk:Macgovern1 being indefinitely blocked. Tumbultaaron's talk page access was eventually removed.[22] Glrx (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

BotA

RE: Battle of the Atlantic and this user talk page post]

Thanks for your comments, I will try to abide by your suggestions.--TedColes (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)