User talk:Bob K31416

Table of contents and sections 1–124

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Bob K31416, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! JFW | T@lk 22:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Hi JFW.

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

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

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

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

AF

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

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

Wikipedia rules and procedures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hall effect

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

Wilderness Diarrhea

Bob:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sourcing

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

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

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

WD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watchlist

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

WAD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHADS

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

Click on show to view the contents of this section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outside comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cost effectiveness

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

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

rho & n

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

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

"Relatively" harmless missile on the roof

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

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

WP:NORDR

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

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

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

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

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

NOR talk page

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy note

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

Atrial fibrillation

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

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

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

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

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

thanks

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

User:Demcaps

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

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

WP:Citing_IMDb

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

Rorschach

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

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

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

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

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

Rorschach

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

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

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

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

Thank you

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

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

FD statistics

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

regards

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

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

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

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

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

derivation

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

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

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

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

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

We have then for the probability:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plugging this into the previous equation:

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

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

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

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

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

NOR examples

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

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

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

Electrothermal instability

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

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

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

Help

{{adminhelp}}

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

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

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

Blood pressure

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

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

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

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

|author5=et al

try this:

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

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

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

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

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

will give something like this:

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

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

Click on show to view the contents of this section

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

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

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

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

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

But the sentence that came after it said something different:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

author: Author. Use to specify a single author of the paper, or alternately, to specify all the authors of the paper in whatever format desired. If you use author to specify all the authors, do not specify the following author-related parameters. last works with first to produce last, first;. These parameters produce the maximum metadata and should be used if possible. author2, last2, first2 and subsequent should be used for co-authors (up to 9 will be displayed before truncation with "et al". authorlink works either with author or with last & first to link to the appropriate article (InterWikimedia links) coauthors: Full name of additional author or authors. Please use 'author2', 'author3', etc instead. author-separator: over-ride the default semi-colon that separates authors' names. mode: Sets element separator, default terminal punctuation, and certain capitalization according to the value provided. For |mode=cs1, element separator and terminal punctuation is a period (.); where appropriate, initial letters of certain words are capitalized ('Retrieved...'). For |mode=cs2, element separator is a comma (,); terminal punctuation is omitted; where appropriate, initial letters of certain words are not capitalized ('retrieved...'). These styles correspond to Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2 respectively. To override default terminal punctuation use postscript. author-mask: contributor-mask: editor-mask: interviewer-mask: subject-mask: translator-mask: Replaces the name of the (first) author with em dashes or text. Set <name>-mask to a numeric value n to set the dash n em spaces wide; set <name>-mask to a text value to display the text without a trailing author separator; for example, "with". The numeric value 0 is a special case to be used in conjunction with <name>-link—in this case, the value of <name>-link will be used as (linked) text. In either case, you must still include the values for all names for metadata purposes. Primarily intended for use with bibliographies or bibliography styles where multiple works by a single author are listed sequentially such as shortened footnotes. Do not use in a list generated by {{reflist}}, <references /> or similar as there is no control of the order in which references are displayed. Mask parameters can take an enumerator in the name of the parameter (e.g. |authorn-mask=) to apply the mask to a specific name. display-authors: display-contributors: display-editors: display-interviewers: display-subjects: display-translators: Controls the number of author (or other kind of contributor) names that are displayed. By default, all authors are displayed. To change the displayed number of names, set the parameter to the desired number. For example, |display-authors=2 will display only the first two authors in a citation (and not affect the display of the other kinds of contributors). |display-authors=0 is a special case suppressing the display of all authors including the et al. |display-authors=etal displays all authors in the list followed by et al. Aliases: none. postscript: Controls the closing punctuation for a citation; defaults to a period (.); for no terminating punctuation, specify |postscript=none – leaving |postscript= empty is the same as omitting it, but is ambiguous. Additional text, or templates that render more than a single terminating punctuation character, will generate a maintenance message. |postscript= is ignored if quote is defined. author-name-separator: over-ride the default comma that separates authors' names. display-authors: Truncate the list of authors at an arbitrary point with "et al". Still include the first 9 authors to allow metadata to be generated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Great Escape - Tom, Dick, and Harry

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

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

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

stevertigo

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

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

Syllogisms

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

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

SOL imperial units source

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

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

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

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

Here's what was before Michael's edit.

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

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

Here's what it looked like before you reverted.

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

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

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

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

Avatar

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

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

Avatar

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

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

Bowstring Afterload

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redthoreau's Avatar edits

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

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

Opinion about a source for Titanic (1997 film) article

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

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

Click on show to view the contents of this section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Avatar

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

Nationalist

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

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

Bob:

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

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

"Speed of Light" Arbitration case

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

Modification of Brews' sanctions

Hi Bob:

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

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

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

"Nice weather, eh?"

"So you say!"

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

Leading the effort

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WAD

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

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

Peer review of Avatar (2009 film)

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

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

Pythagoras's Theorem

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click on show to view the contents of this section

Welcome!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

then using the familiar definitions,

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

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

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

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

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

along with simple algebra, one can derive,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Then came the issue of the equation,

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

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

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

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

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

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

z = x × y	x × y
i	j×k
j	k×i
k	i×j

The sine relationship then follows on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I have understood Carl correctly, there is confusion here because Lounesto called his equation involving the cross product "Pythagoras' theorem", which was a huge misnomer. This equation must be interpreted rather as part of the defintion of the cross product, and therefore is restricted to 3 or 7 dimensions. The proper statement of Pythagoras' theorem expresses the squared magnitude of a vector as the sum of squares of its orthogonal compnents, and that statement has no dimensional restrictions and no connection to the cross product. Brews ohare (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Brews, there is a bit of irony here. If you look at the edit history of seven dimensional cross product, you will see that I actually tried to remove the name 'Pythagorean identity' from that equation. But now I have changed my mind. It's a tricky issue. The equation is accurately called the Lagrange identity for the special cases of 3 and 7 dimensions. But in my opinion it is also exactly Pythagoras's theorem in the 3D case. In the context of the article, it is first presented as an equation which needs to hold for the purposes of defining the cross product. As such, in the context, we can't call it the Lagrange identity initially because it doesn't reveal itself as being the Lagrange identity in 3 or 7 dimensions until after it has been shown that the equation only works in 3 or 7 dimensions. However, using the name 'Pythagorean identity', as Lounesto does, immediately incorporates the spirit of why that equation is desirable in the first place as a starting point. Nevertheless, I don't think that 'Pythagorean identity' is necessarily a good name for the 7D case.

The 3D case is however unambiguous. Pythagoras's theorem is clearly the special 3D form of the Lagrange identity. The cross product is merely a transitionary mathematical tool which is used in demonstrating that linkage. Clearly Pythagoras's theorem is a 3D theorem. It is a theorem about a 2D triangle in a 3D space. Lagrange's identity tells us unequivocally that Pythagoras's theorem is not a theorem in a 2D space. David Tombe (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi David: Maybe I get your point. I'd say it differently. I'd say Pythagoras' theorem stated generally is about squared magnitude being the sum of squares of orthogonal components. I'd say for general a and b in 3D or 7D a·b gives us a component of a (or b, take your choice) in the direction of b (or a), and a × b gives us an orthogonal component. For instance, a = (a.b)b/|b| +(a - (a.b)b/|b|) = (a.b)b/|b| + (a × b)/|b|. So Pythagoras' theorem as sum of squares comes down to sin² + cos² = 1. In other words, where a cross product is available, it involves the sin. Hence, we can replace sin by |a × b|/(|a||b|). So we've got an equivalent statement involving the cross product where the cross-product is available, but no connection where it is not. Brews ohare (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've not got this right yet. It looks like I need the triple cross product b × (a × b) to get the direction that is in the plane of a and b and orthogonal to b. Let's take b as unit magnitude. Then

$\mathbf {a} =(\mathbf {a\cdot b} )\mathbf {b} +\mathbf {b\times } (\mathbf {b\times a} )\ ,$

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

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

$=|\mathbf {a} |^{2}\left(\cos ^{2}\theta +\sin ^{2}\theta \right)\ .$

The point of which is to show the utility of the cross product is to establish the component of a orthogonal to b, which works only in 3D and 7D, but in any dimensional space we can always find the orthogonal components in some fashion without the cross product, whether or not it exists. Pythagoras remains to be about summing orthogonal components in every case.

Apologies, Bob, for using your Talk page for this discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Haven't gotten around to reading all of this, but I expect I will. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Brews, The bottom line is that Pythagoras's theorem is the Lagrange identity in three dimensions. Cross product is merely a tool which enables this fact to be exposed. See the reply which I am about to give to Carl on his talk page.

Meanwhile, the relevance of the Jacobi identity in all of this is to rule out the same argument for seven dimensions, because the sine relationship is dependent on the Jacobi identity which does not hold in 7D. David Tombe (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In n-dim, cross product in terms of sine

Hi David, I looked at the article Seven-dimensional cross product and here's an excerpt for the case of n-dim,

From the Pythagorean identity and the second property the norm |x × y| is therefore:

|x × y| = |x||y| sin θ.

So according to the Wikipedia article, this relation that held in 3-dim also holds in n-dim. Am I understanding this correctly? Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, the cross product is not defined except for 3D and 7D. The angle, on the other hand, can be defined in n-dimensions using the dot product:

$\cos \theta ={\frac {\mathbf {a\cdot b} }{\|\mathbf {a} \|\|\mathbf {b} \|}}\ ,$

which determines the sine using:

$\cos ^{2}\theta +\sin ^{2}\theta =1\ .$

The impediment for the cross product is finding a vector relation v = V ( a, b ) that is orthogonal to both a and b for every pair of vectors a & b. That cannot be done in a space of arbitrary dimension n. One might think of trying:

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

which can be constructed in arbitrary dimension n and is orthogonal to b for any a and b, but it's not orthogonal to a. One approach to trying to find such a v is to express a and b in terms of unit vectors e_j (j = 1, ..., n ), and create a multiplication table as displayed in Octonion.

$e_{i}e_{j}=-\delta _{ij}e_{0}+\varepsilon _{ijk}e_{k}\ ,$

where $\varepsilon _{ijk}$ is the permutation tensor in 3D and something else in 7-D.

Apparently combinations cannot be found in arbitrary dimensions, only in n = 3 & 7. Brews ohare (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, The sine relationship in the cross product is dependent on the Jacobi identity, which doesn't hold in 7D. I'm sorry I can't give you any sources for that, because if I could, I wouldn't hesitate to delete that material from the seven dimensional cross product article. The best that I could do would be to copy out the proof from my old applied maths notes. While that may not be satisfactory for wikipedia purposes, it would at least be eductational for your own benefit.

I wanted you to look at the seven dimensional cross product article simply to satisfy yourself that cross product exists in only 3 and 7 dimensions.

But ultimately, my point was that Pythagoras's theorem is simply the Lagrange identity in 3D. Based on that wikipedia article, we could also argue that Pythagoras's theorem is the Lagrange identity in 7D as well, and that Pythagoras's theorem is uniquely a 3 and 7 dimensional theorem. But I have always doubted that angle, as we know it, has any meaning in 7D, and I have recently turned up the proof in my old applied maths notes that links the sine relationship to the Jacobi identity, which doesn't hold in 7D.

Apart from linking the 7D cross product to angle, I am quite satisfied that the rest of the material in that article is factually correct. It might however do with a bit of a clean up to make it more readable and to explain the issues which may cause queries. At the momentum it is rather shrouded in too much 'pure maths speak'. David Tombe (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

David: What is the connection between angle and the Jacobi identity? It would seem to me that having cosine from the dot product necessarily determines the sine from $\sin ^{2}+\cos ^{2}=1\,$. This relation can be interpreted as part of the definition of the sine. So I'm led to think that your objection is related to the interpretation of θ, and not its actual value, which is clearly determined? Brews ohare (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Brews, what you say above is true, providing that we assume that angle exists in any dimensions, as defined through cosine and/or inner product. And if you are correct in that respect, then my argument changes slightly to the fact that Pythagoras's theorem is the special case of the Lagrange identity for both 3 and 7 dimensions.

I would argue that angle is a 2D concept that only has meaning providing that there exists a singular third dimension, and so I would rule out angle for 7D. But we need something more substantial than a mere hunch. Therefore I am pointing out that angle cannot exist in the 7D cross product, because, as is already agreed by everybody, the 7D cross product is not compatible with the Jacobi identity. I have given a proof of that on your talk page, but unfortunately I have had to improvise with the symbolism. David Tombe (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the second paragraph, the definition of angle based upon dot product has really no intuitive interpretation, as all it means is that the projection (a. b) is always less than ||a|| ||b||. Any function that must be less than 1 could be used. You would like to have angle related to rotation, which requires an axis, and that is a reasonable thing to request. But it is not addressed by Cauchy-Schwarz.

Regarding Pythagoras' theorem, I think we have the often seen occurrence of a semantic difficulty. My present take is that Pythagoras' theorem means square of magnitude is sum of squares of orthogonal components, and as such is divorced entirely from cross-product. It is therefore readily applied to arbitrary dimension n. It is the cross-product that provides the dimensional requirements, and can be used only in 3D and 7D, where it just so happens it can be used as an alternative expression of Pythagoras' theorem. To combine this point with your request for a connection to rotation, because the existence of cross product also means an axis of rotation can be found, I'd hazard that if we require angle to be connected to rotation, then you are perfectly right that Pythagoras applies only in 3D and 7D. But if we allow angle to be a meaningless expression that says only the dot product has a maximum value of ||a|| ||b||, then Pythagoras' theorem can be used anywhere. Brews ohare (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Concept of angle

Hi David, I'll put aside any followup I have regarding the cross product and sine for now, since it appears that we need to discuss the more basic concept of angle first. Regarding your remark, "I would argue that angle is a 2D concept that only has meaning providing that there exists a singular third dimension" and a previous remark of yours "I simply can't imagine a rotation without a rotation axis."

What are your thoughts regarding the second and third sentences of the lead of the Wikipedia article Rotation?

"A two-dimensional object rotates around a center (or point) of rotation. A three-dimensional object rotates around an imaginary line called an axis."

Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, I read that part in the article Rotation, and I don't agree with it. As far as I am concerned, a rotation must have an axis which is a line perpendicular to the plane of rotation. The point is that all our 2D planes exist in a 3D space. If one wishes to conceive of the concept of a 2D space in which a veil has been drawn over any higher dimensions such that they cannot be discerned, then it is a matter of sheer conjecture as to whether or not Pythagoras's theorem will apply. Such a pure 2D space is a fantasy world, and so we know nothing about it, or what rotation might mean in it. And it is purely conjecture on the part of those who argue that rotation occurs about a point in such a space. As regards 'inner product spaces in 'n' dimensions' I noticed arguments that I kept well out of. They were arguing over the real and the imaginary parts. As far as I am concerned, the entire concept of an 'n' dimensional inner product space is imaginary.

But the fact that Pythagoras's theorem is the 3D version of Lagrange's identity is not conjecture. It is a plain undisputable fact. If you don't believe me about the sine in the 7D case and the Jacobi identity, that only changes the argument very slightly. We would then be forced to accept that Pythagoras's theorem holds in 7D as well as 3D. But I have left a proof on Brews's talk page regarding the close connection between the sine in the cross product and the Jacobi identity. And the Jacobi identity only holds in 3D, and nobody is disputing that fact. David Tombe (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Concept of 2-dimensional space

David, I'll put aside any followup regarding angle for now, since it appears that we need to discuss the more basic concept of a 2-dimensional space first. From your comments, it seems that you believe that a 2-dimensional space cannot exist mathematically without a 3-dimensional space that it is part of. Am I understanding you correctly? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, It's a very interesting question and I've given it more thought. If we try to contemplate a 2D space in isolation, we are effectively playing the game of 'let's pretend'. I think that we need to distinguish between a 2D plane in a 3D space on the one hand, and a 2D space on the other hand. I would say that we can't properly conceive of the idea of a 2D space any more than we can conceive of the idea of a 5D space.

Consider a 5D space. If an object rotates in the plane of two of the dimensions, that means that it will have three different and mutually orthogonal rotation axes. Can we just assume that Pythagoras's theorem will hold in such a world? Is it not more likely that something more complex would exist in such a world?

Consider the Lagrange identity. It holds in any dimensions. In 3D space it supplies the basis for Pythagoras's theorem. But in 5D space would you still expect such a 3D identity to apply? In 2D space would you expect such a 3D identity to apply? We certainly couldn't use vector cross product in 2D to handle rotations.

Imagine you could travel to other universes in different dimensions. Imagine your first day back at work on your return. Your colleagues would ask you if you had a good holiday. You would reply 'Yes. The Pythagoras theorems were splendid. At the 15D universe they were using a complex Pythagoras theorem based on the 15D version of the Lagrange identity'.

I just don't think that we can assume that Pythagoras's theorem in its classical form can automatically be generalized to 'n' dimensions without losing its original areal interpretation. In an 'n'D inner product space, I see Pythagoras's theorem as being merely a definition. The 'n'D inner product space is a fantasy world where Pythagoras's theorem is invited in, but told to take off its outer product and leave it on the mat in the porch. The outer product comes with the sine of the angle, which in turn hinges on the Jacobi identity, which is in turn restricted to three dimensions. David Tombe (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "I think that we need to distinguish between a 2D plane in a 3D space on the one hand, and a 2D space on the other hand. I would say that we can't properly conceive of the idea of a 2D space any more than we can conceive of the idea of a 5D space." - I think this is on the right track, but I'm a bit uncertain as to what these statements mean to you. When you wrote "a 2D plane in a 3D space on the one hand", perhaps you mean in the physical space where we exist? Whereas in the next part of the sentence, "and a 2D space on the other hand", perhaps you mean a purely mathematical construction? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, That's basically it. Anything that we assume about a 2D space is based on our observations of 2D geometry in a 3D space. It's impossible to know anything at all about the realities of a purely 2D space, because the idea is purely imaginary. David Tombe (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

What it would be like for me to exist in a two dimensional world would be hard for me to understand too. But pure mathematics isn't concerned with that. Purely mathematical objects, such as mathematical spaces, are defined independently of physical space. For example, from p. 48 of Paige, Lowell J. (1961). Elements of Linear Algebra. Blaisdell Publishing Company. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

"The real vector space V_n(R) will be defined in terms of its elements, a rule of equality, and two rules of operation."

The book goes on to define it as "the set of ordered n-tuples of real numbers..." etc. and "equality of vectors", "addition of vectors", and "scalar multiplication" are part of the definition. There's no discussion of any correspondence to physical space in the definition. Is this OK so far? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, That's been exactly my point all along. There is no correspondence to physical space in any of the definitions relating to higher dimensions. It's all pure mathematics. But even the pure maths restricts Pythagoras's theorem to 3 and 7 dimensions. This fact is made quite clear through the Lagrange identity. There only remains the issue of eliminating the 7D case through the Jacobi identity. See the comment that I am about to make on the talk page at Pythagoras's theorem. David Tombe (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding a purely mathematical 2 dimensional space, is it OK to discuss the concept of angle in such a space, independently of physical space? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, We can certainly discuss it. But it will all be pure speculation that will no doubt be heavily prejudiced by our knowledge of a 2D plane in a 3D space. There is nothing stopping us from defining a 2D space or a 15D space. There is nothing stopping us from defining a theorem in the likeness of Pythagoras's theorem to apply in these imaginary mathematical constructs. But we should not assume that these defined 'n' dimensional Pythagoras's theorems, which are purely mathematical constructs, should be equated with the very real Pythagoras's theorem, which is actually a proveable theorem in 3D space. David Tombe (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Suppose we have a line and a separate point, both in the same 2-dim space. Then we move the point in such a way that we keep its distance to the line constant. Would the moving point have a path that is a line segment, parallel to the line? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, You are equating this mathematical 2D space with a 2D plane in a 3D space. A purely mathematical 2D space has go no connection whatsoever with areas or geometry. The Lagrange identity in 2D gives us no linkage whatsoever with 3D Euclidean space. We cannot assume that a purely mathematical 2D space has got any connection with a 2D plane in a 3D space. Only 3D space can be linked to Euclidean geometry, and it's the 3D Lagrange identity which leads us to Pythagoras's theorem.

The answer to your question above is 'yes', but only if we are dealing with a 2D plane in a 3D space. David Tombe (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "You are equating this mathematical 2D space with a 2D plane in a 3D space." - I didn't understand this remark since there was no reliance AFAICT on the existence of any 3D space for the discussion of points, a line, and a line segment in the 2D space of the above situation that I presented. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, You gave a plane geometrical interpretation to the mathematical concept of a 2D space. I can't imagine such an interpretation. I can only imagine a 2D plane in a 3D space. So you are asking me a question about a scenario which I can't imagine unless I assume it to equate to a 2D plane in a 3D space. What you must remember here is that I am banned from discussing physics on wikipedia. And If I were to fully give you justice on your question, I would have to branch into physics. I do have a better answer for you, but I am disqualified from stating it. I have tried my best to answer you within the confines of mathematics/geometry. David Tombe (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's about it for me. I don't think we can make any more progress in this discussion. I don't see why there is a need to discuss physics for a purely mathematical subject of a mathematical 2D space, which has points, lines and line segments, which are defined mathematically as a locus of points, independent of physics. Sorry we couldn't reach a meeting of minds. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, The problem is because I can't imagine any such concept as a plane geometrical 2D plane in the absence of a third dimension. If we want to simply assume that such a 2D plane can exist, and then import all the rules and visualizations from a 2D plane in a 3D space, then of course I would have to concede that we can have angle. But we will run into trouble when we discover that we can't use the cross product to describe rotational phenomena.

Just as an aside, have you ever thought about 7D curl? David Tombe (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, There's a set of relationships that are all fully compatible in 3D. These are Pythagoras's theorem, cross product, dot product, the Lagrange identity, and the Jacobi identity. Try moving outside of 3D and you get a glitch with the Jacobi identity for all other dimensions, and you also get a glitch with the Lagrange identity for all other dimensions apart from 7. Pythagoras's theorem emerges from the 3D Lagrange identity. With the exception of the controversial case of 7D, it certainly doesn't emerge from the Lagrange identity in any other dimensions. You seem to be assuming that a mathematical 2D space can be represented by a 2D plane as we understand such in a 3D space. Are you confident that you can make that assumption? David Tombe (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

re "You seem to be assuming that a mathematical 2D space can be represented by a 2D plane as we understand such in a 3D space. Are you confident that you can make that assumption?" - I didn't understand your comment since I didn't mention anything about 3D in my discussion of a mathematical 2D space, which has points, lines and line segments, which are defined mathematically as a locus of points in the 2D space. Are you sure you want to continue this? It doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob, You are still making the assumption that a purely 2D space can be represented by plane geometry, whereas in fact it is merely an algebraic contruct. You have already told me that you can't imagine a 2D plane where no 3rd dimension exists? So how do you know that the algebra of a 2D space would relate to such a concept if you can't even imagine it? In 3D, we can clearly see that the algebra of a 3D space relates to 3D geometry, and 3D geometry involves 2D planes. David Tombe (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think we can communicate on this subject. I'm ending my participation in this conversation. No hard feelings. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Pythagoras

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

I think that's a wise move just to step away for awhile. You're right not to let it bother you too much, since everything we do is voluntary. Here's a clip of Marge Simpson's edit getting reverted by Bart, who also happened to revert his mother in the process too. As I recall, she got too carried away with the fictional internet game Neverquest in that episode.

I try to think of the Wikipedia for what it is, an encyclopedia, not a proving ground of our personal worth. For example, I've come across some mention of suicide threats in Wikipedia discussions. Now that's really carrying things too far. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bob: For a reader, WP is a source of ideas related to a topic that may or may not be useful or accurate, but will expand one's view of a topic. For an editor, WP has many roles. Being a proving ground is probably a role for many, and leads to a lot of trouble. Being a venue for collaborative interaction is a role too, but seems to be rarely enjoyed. Brews ohare (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

RE:Avatar

I thought you meant to give it to alt text, since there is no alt text there. My bad. Guy546^(Talk) 21:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on Critical reception section in Avatar (2009 film) peer review

Hey, Bob. Your thoughs on the Critical reception section length for the Avatar article and why it is designed the way it is may be helpful in the peeer review. Flyer22 (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and as you can see over there, your transmission came in loud and clear in any case. : ) Right now I'm looking at how to trim critical reception. What do you think so far about my comment over there? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine. I guess we just wait for feedback now. Flyer22 (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk page, Bob. Per your request, left a comment at the peer review page. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars mention in Avatar

I wasn't sure if you still wanted an answer, even though you removed this question from my talk page:

We "discussed" it in our edit summaries, when interacting with each other. It was one of those times when we were working off each other so well, maybe the first time we did that. I would go through the edit history and find it, but I am lazy at the moment. Flyer22 (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. A bit of a funk was coming over me so I deleted a few comments that I had put in, in various places, and I think I need a rest from Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's fine, Bob. I completely understand, believe me. Flyer22 (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi Bob:

I have never been involved in a Featured Article procedure, and thought you might have some words on the subject. The Pythagorean theorem article looks pretty good to me at this point. Obviously I have made many revisions of this article, so I am rather too close to it at this point to have an objective view. Would you be willing to participate? Brews ohare (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have much experience with peer reviews, as I recall just recently some with the Avatar (2009 film) peer review. With that preface, I think a peer review would be good to get some fresh uninvolved opinions about the article. I would take a look at it from time to time, and maybe comment here and there, but my feeling at present is that I don't think I would be too active. I think I'm trying to increase my sanity by decreasing my Wikipedizing, LOL! But not real successful at that. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Just a random comment, I wouldn't have the angle equation in the figure in the section "Euclidean distance in various coordinate systems". Either have the left side or the right side, and put the equation in the caption. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bob: Did that. Thanks for the suggestion. Brews ohare (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have marked you as a reviewer

I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.

If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.

To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.

The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I just tried it out.[11] --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Staring proof of Pythagoras

Hi Bob: You may recall the suggestion you made that is summarized here. A nagging question in my mind is whether the proof that "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line" doesn't require Pythagoras' theorem. In other words, perhaps a different justification than that provided is necessary to avoid circular reasoning? What is your view? Brews ohare (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

For example, here is a source. Brews ohare (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Click on show to view the contents of this section

Hi. I don't understand what point you are trying to convey. Could you explain it more? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. This observation is a crucial point in establishing the inequalities used in Staring's proof. Although it is intuitively obvious that the hypotenuse is longer than either of the adjacent sides of a right triangle, to put this inequality on a firm axiomatic footing one needs something akin to the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. That is, the intuitive obviousness of this point stems from our everyday experience with normal 3-D space, and actually cannot be established without Pythagoras' theorem. Without a way to establish this fact, Staring's proof begs the question. Brews ohare (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Differently put, Pythagoras' theorem is a consequence of the Euclidean axioms, and it is stated somewhere in the article that it is tantamount to the non-intersection of parallel lines. What we need to make Staring's proof non-circular is to identify the axiom that leads to the required inequality, so that it is plain that we are not simply using Pythagoras' theorem itself to establish the theorem. Brews ohare (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I need some help here because my grounding in the axioms is not deep enough. For example, the assumption that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line is a consequence of Pythagoras' theorem. Cauchy-Schwarz inequality establishes this point for function spaces, and it appears that that is sufficient to establish the function space as Euclidean. So it appears that Staring's proof could be taken as establishing Pythagoras by assuming Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. But that doesn't seem to be a big accomplishment if it already is known by logical deduction. Brews ohare (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

In short, all that Staring has proved may be that if Pythagoras' theorem holds, then a da + b db = c dc. That seems to be a result more readily established by direct application of differentiation. Brews ohare (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think your point is, how do we know that the hypotenuse of a right triangle is greater than either leg. This is a corollary to a theorem from a geometry text.

Theorem 91 – "If one angle of a triangle is greater than a second angle, the side opposite the first angle is greater than the side opposite the second angle."

Corollary II – "The hypotenuse of a right triangle is greater than either leg."

Welchons, AM; Krickenberger, WR; Pearson, HR (1961). Plane Geometry. Ginn and Company. p. 508.

I also found the theorem online here.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bob: Question: There is a question of logical sequence here. If a theorem is to be used to establish Pythagoras, then it mus be logically prior to Pythagoras. By that I mean that the logical chain leading to the theorem must not include Pythagoras in the chain of reasoning supporting its proof. So the question is just where does this Theorem fit in? It is dependent upon a definition of angle, which might (I don't know) involve Pythagoras' theorem somehow. For example, angle is often defined using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. I can read this reference over, but maybe you know the answer? Brews ohare (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The proof of theorem 91 on p. 508 doesn't use right triangles or the Pythagorean theorem. It constructs a line from a vertex of the triangle to the opposite side such that one of the resulting interior triangles is isosceles, with one of the equal angles being one of the angles of the original triangle. Then it uses "sides opposite equal angles are equal". Then it uses theorem 89 on p. 507 that "each side of a triangle is less than the sum of the other two sides", which is proved (according to a hint) using assumption 14 on p. 56, "a straight line segment is the shortest line segment that can be drawn between two points". --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bob: The assumption stated "a straight line segment is the shortest line segment that can be drawn between two points" appears to be simply the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Is "a straight line segment is the shortest line segment that can be drawn between two points" simply the same thing as Pythagoras' theorem?

Here's my attempt to answer this question. A viable axiomatic basis for a geometry: postulate the properties of points and lines, and define a distance function d = PQ for the distance between points P and Q:

If P and Q are points, then

$PQ\geqq 0\ .$

$PQ=0\ \mathrm {iff} \ P=Q\ .$

$PQ=QP\ .$

Then one can define a variety of distance functions that satisfy these postulates. Some such distance functions also satisfy the triangle inequality, which becomes an additional postulate of a geometry:

$PQ+QR\geqq PR\ .$

This inequality appears to me to say "a straight line segment is the shortest line segment that can be drawn between two points". Do you agree? However, although necessary, the triangle inequality appears insufficient to establish Pythagoras' theorem: Example: Euclidean distance function

$d(P,Q)={\sqrt {(x_{2}-x_{1})^{2}+(y_{2}-y_{1})^{2}}}\ .$

Example: Taxicab geometry:

$t(P,Q)=|x_{2}-x_{1}|+|y_{2}-y_{1}|\ .$

Both satisfy the triangle inequality.

Thus, Pythagoras' formula appears not to follow from these axioms, but to require more, because taxicab distance also satisfies the requirements.

How does Staring's proof force us into a Euclidean distance function instead of a taxicab distance (say)? Brews ohare (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Re "PQ+QR≥PR This inequality appears to me to say 'a straight line segment is the shortest line segment that can be drawn between two points'." – It appears that this inequality is one consequence of "a straight line segment is the shortest line segment that can be drawn between two points".

Regarding the rest, I didn't understand the point you were trying to make. But I can try to respond to some of the things you wrote.

Re "Is 'a straight line segment is the shortest line segment that can be drawn between two points' simply the same thing as Pythagoras' theorem?" – No.

Re "Euclidean distance function" – It looks like your equation for this is the same as the Pythagorean theorem.

Re "How does Staring's proof force us into a Euclidean distance function instead of a taxicab distance (say)?" – For the proofs of the Pythagorean theorem like Staring's proof and most others, I don't think that distance is defined by a distance function. In the textbook that I referred to, it had this to say about definitions.

"In defining a term, we express its meaning by use of simpler (better understood) terms which have already been defined. These latter terms, in turn, can be defined in still other simple terms, and so on, but obviously the process cannot go on forever. Eventually we must come to a stopping place consisting of a few terms so well understood that there are no simpler terms to use in explaining them. For example, if we look in the dictionary for the meaning of the word 'straight,' we find words expressing the idea 'not curved,' and if we look for 'curved,' we find words expressing the idea 'not straight.' Unless we know the meaning of one or the other of these words, the dictionary is of little help. We allow such terms to remain undefined terms, for any attempt to explain them results in either the kind of circular reasoning we have just illustrated, or the use of terms more complicated than the term being explained."

With this in mind, the textbook gives the following definition, "the distance between two points is the length of the line segment joining them." And it doesn't define length.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Bob: Here's an interesting discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC) And here's another one. Brews ohare (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The triangle inequality also applies in spherical geometry where the distance between any two points P and Q is the angle they subtend at the center of the sphere, and shortest distances are great circles. As I don't have access to your source, I don't know what it is about their proof that would make it inapplicable to spherical geometry where Pythagoras' theorem doesn't work. If it does apply in spherical geometry, what is it about Staring's proof that doesn't work? Brews ohare (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Summary

Hi Bob: I believe we agree on many points above. I'd try to summarize my uncertainties as follows. It is agreed by all sources that Pythagoras' theorem is equivalent to the parallel postulate, which takes on many equivalent forms. Staring's proof must therefore do the same as all other proofs of Pythagoras' theorem: start with some assumption equivalent to Pythagoras' theorem and thereby derive the equivalence of that assumption to Pythagoras' theorem. My guess is that it is the assumption expressed in the footnote that is equivalent to Pythagoras' theorem in one of its many guises. I'd like to pin that down to one of the established postulates that is already known to be the same as Pythagoras' theorem. Would you agree that this is culprit, or does it show up elsewhere in Staring's proof? Brews ohare (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re "It is agreed by all sources that Pythagoras' theorem is equivalent to the parallel postulate, which takes on many equivalent forms." – I'm not sure that is true, even though it appears as an unsourced statement in the Wikipedia article Parallel postulate. Could you give a link to one of the reliable sources that shows that Pythagoras' theorem is equivalent? Then I'll continue with the rest of your message. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Staring's proof and Pythagoras' theorem

Continuation of above section

Hi Bob: I've changed my mind on the origin of the assumption leading to Pythagoras' theorem in Staring's proof. I now understand it to stem from the use of similar triangles in order to establish cosθ and cosφ. Establishing similarity of triangles involves showing that all the angles are the same, and that involves using the Triangle postulate, known to be equivalent to the parallel postulate and hence equivalent to Pythagoras' theorem. Hence, Staring's proof is of the same ilk as the other proofs using similarity, in particular this one and this one. Comments? Brews ohare (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Re "the assumption leading to Pythagoras' theorem in Staring's proof" – What is the assumption in Staring's proof that you are referring to? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bob: I think we are on different wavelengths here. Here's my perspective, which I think differs form where you are coming from. The geometry is an axiomatic development à la Hilbert's axioms or Euclid's. A proof of Pythagoras' theorem amounts to showing how the theorem stems from the axioms. If one wishes, one can turn any such proof around, remove an axiom (the parallel postulate, say), make Pythagoras' theorem an axiom and deduce the removed axiom (the parallel postulate).

My initial worry was that Staring's proof was trivial, making an assumption of Pythagoras to deduce Pythagoras. However, I grew away from that idea to the question of just what axiom equivalent to the parallel postulate was used in Staring's proof to obtain Pythagoras. There is a list of propositions equivalent to the parallel postulate, and Pythagoras is one of them. The proofs using similar triangles use the Triangle postulate, which is a recognized equivalent to the parallel postulate. Staring uses similar triangles in order to establish expressions for cosθ and cosφ, so I conclude that this is the bridge he is building: similar triangles → Pythagoras. Since parallel postulate → Triangle postulate → similar triangles, I see why Staring's proof works, and am reassured that it is not trivially circular. Brews ohare (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

In your remarks there seems to be a general idea concerning the criteria for determining whether a proof is distinct from another proof. For us editors the issue seems more simple. We use reliable sources for the material that we put in articles, and if a reliable source treats a proof as distinct, then that is how it would appear in a Wikipedia article. There may be exceptions, but that would depend on how clear and credible the reasoning is for the exception, IMO. However, it may be best to steer clear of OR situations. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Bob: Sure. There are two issues involved in this particular case. (i) Is Staring's proof reliable? I guess you could say that its publication is circumstantial evidence that it is reliable, and WP would go along with that idea unless there was a contradictory publication. In this case, Cut the knot Proof #40 makes two erroneous claims that appear to contradict Staring's publication - first they say his proof is the same as Hardy's, which isn't so. Second, they piss on Hardy's proof as needing a "grain of salt", and by implication also upon Staring's proof. I see no basis for saying Staring's proof requires a grain of salt, but this negative view led me to worry a bit. Having sifted through this proof several times, I am of the opinion that no grain of salt is necessary. (ii) How does Staring's proof depend upon the parallel postulate? This question is not simply a question of whether his proof is correct, but is also a question that can be asked of any proof of Pythagoras' theorem. It is a matter of curiosity because we know that all proofs of Pythagoras must involve the parallel postulate somehow, and it is of interest to know just where that postulate is smuggled into the proof. If the proof does not involve the parallel postulate in some guise, it is either trivial (circular) or erroneous.

I don't know where OR enters this discussion. Maybe the identification of the use of similar triangles as the point where the parallel postulate enters the proof? I haven't proposed introducing this point into the article, and until that happens the matter is just a discussion, and OR is an inapplicable criticism. Brews ohare (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Hardy's proof as presented by Cut-the-knot Proof #40 is not erroneous, it simply left out some steps (as 90% of proofs do because they don't want to go all the way back to Euclid's axioms). I provided some extra steps here, as you may recall. I believe those steps remove the Cut-the-knot objections, but you objected that it was OR, which is what led to introduction of Staring's proof here. Brews ohare (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, my main objection was that it was questionable, a conclusion that I came to independently before I was aware of essentially the same part of Hardy's proof being criticized at Cut the Knot. The questionable part wasn't in Staring's proof. Also as I recall, our discussion ended because we got as far as we could without repeating ourselves and we couldn't come to an agreement. No problem. It happens. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bob: So my memory is a bit foggy on this, eh? However, it is water under the bridge at this point. Did you understand the previous two paragraphs? Brews ohare (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

For the most part I understood it, and I think there are parts that need straightening out. But I don't think that's going to happen. I think you've been somewhat unresponsive to my messages and questions. Maybe you feel the same way about me. I don't think we've been communicating very well in this discussion and I'd rather not continue. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bob: I regret very much that you find me unresponsive. I would like to fix that. Can you tell me what it is that I am not getting? Brews ohare (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What's our status?

Hi Bob:

I gather you're not altogether happy with some of our exchanges. However, for my part, I've enjoyed working with you over the Staring proof and some other issues on Pythagorean theorem. Development of an article is not a seamless process, and sometimes things don't develop easily. A number of sections didn't go quite as I wanted originally. However, I think the end result was fine.

Where do we stand? Brews ohare (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We're fine. I don't expect perfection from the people I interact with and I hope they don't expect that from me. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Unattributed quotes

(I copied the following message of mine from User talk:DCGeist.)

Hi. Thanks for your edits. What I was trying to get at, was that putting quotes around words is like using weasel words. That is, the quotation marks themselves have the same effect as weasel words by giving the impression that someone said what was in the quotes, just like weasel words give the impression that the text associated with them was said by someone. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Bob. I don't disagree with the basic point that you're making, but it's simply not applicable to the particular page in question, which is a style guideline devoted to Words to watch. The point doesn't truly fit on the page, and as I twice explained in edit summary, it is explicitly covered on our policy page WP:Verifiability. In fact, it's covered there three times—in the nutshell, in the lede, and in the first section of the main text:

• "This page in a nutshell: Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."
• "This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question."
• "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

Given that fact and the fact that the point clearly does not bear directly on any particular words to watch, it obviously does not belong on the style guideline page.

P.S. I started this response here, so I hope you'll understand that I didn't move it. I don't mind going back and forth at all.—DCGeist (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Just so we're on the same wavelength, when you wrote "I don't disagree with the basic point that you're making...", what do you feel is the basic point that I'm making? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That it is not appropriate to present an assertion either of opinion or of fact in the form of a quotation without attributing the quotation.—DCGeist (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the point I was trying to make in the first message here, was that quotation marks can have the same function as weasel words. Regarding your mention of the three parts of WP:V, they apply to weasel words too, although quotations are explicitly mentioned there, which I think was your point in quoting those three parts. But I don't think many editors view scare quotes, for example, the same as quotations as mentioned in WP:V, and they may incorrectly feel that they never need sourcing.

However, I think I understand your point that the title of the page WP:Manual of Style (words to watch) indicates that it isn't appropriate to discuss this use of quotation marks there and that it is covered in WP:V. My attempt to discuss it there was motivated by the similarity that I noticed between weasel words and the use of quotation marks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:V

Hi, am not sure if you meant to delete your recent talk page contribution: [12]. Perhaps you are still thinking about it? I like the fix you suggested. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This prevents unverifiable claims from being added to articles, and citing those sources helps prevent plagiarism and copyright violations. (In the first sentence I would say "prevents" rather than "helps prevent.")

Regarding "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", note proposal 5 higher up on that talk page. This phrase may -- arguably, I would be grateful for feedback -- become redundant if proposal 5 is implemented. --JN466 23:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

There were complications that I noticed after I posted the message, so I decided to undo it and give it more thought.

1. In the reason that I gave,

"the claims can be verifiable even if they aren't cited at the time they are put in an article"

I didn't think that I used the term "verifiable" correctly as it was used in WP:V, where it means that a citation has been provided for the reader.

2. It wasn't clear to me that giving a citation helps prevent copyright violations. For example, if a large chunk of material is copied from a source, it may be a copyright violation whether or not the source is cited. However, I wasn't sure if there were cases where authors/publications of copyrighted material give permission in the publication for copying if the copyrighted material is cited. So I didn't know what to do with that part of the policy.

Regarding my reason for "helps prevent unverifiable claims..." instead of just "prevents", an editor could base a contribution on those sources but still inadvertently add an unverifiable claim, for example by honestly misinterpreting the source. So I think it "helps prevent", rather than "prevents", since the prevention isn't certain.

I looked at proposal 5 and the comments. My feeling is that the most important and most useful part by far is

"In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing scientific findings, evidence, facts, and legal aspects; the greater the scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source."

Perhaps it would be better to give brief examples to explain what this sentence means, instead of trying to rank academic, news, etc as far as which are most reliable. Also it might be useful to include in this sentence some remarks regarding the competence of those doing the scrutinizing. For example, an article about a scientific subject in a mainstream newspaper may be scrutinized by the staff of the newspaper, but there may still be incorrect facts in the story because of the limited scientific competence of the news staff. Regarding academic sources, I seem to recall what appeared to be an "academic" source where the "peer-review" was done by the one person who published the journal.

Well, that's my attempt at trying to help. Feel free to ask any questions about any of this, etc, and thanks for dropping by. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Pleasure. Are you okay with the edit I made to the policy page? "Helps prevent" would work as well for me, but citing sources undoubtedly does prevent many instances of unverifiable claims being added -- by dint of the source being there, they become "verifiable". --JN466 02:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Re "helps", I thought it was better because of what I mentioned before. Also, a troublesome editor might argue that problems with a claim have been prevented, according to WP:V, because a third party source has been cited.

2. I would suggest adding to the end, "for correction".

3. On a somewhat different subject, although I recognized that WP:Plagiarism included closely paraphrased material, it's not clear to me that plagiarism should be an issue for Wikipedia. The basis of plagiarism is taking credit for someone else's work. I don't think editors of Wikipedia get credit for what they put in an article so plagiarism doesn't seem to be an issue. Editors tend to be anonymous and even if they aren't, the only record of their contributions is buried and difficult to find in the history of an article. If a passage is closely paraphrased and cited, the original author is much much more likely to get credit for the passage than is the Wikipedia editor that contributed it. Perhaps the only issue is copyright violation, not plagiarism. Or maybe the plagiarism issue pertains to the entity "Wikipedia" getting credit? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it is about Wikipedia getting credit, and also those who potentially might reuse Wikipedia texts commercially. --JN466 09:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Bob, I had an edit conflict with you at WP:V talk and somehow -- I don't understand how -- appear to have accidentally reverted an edit you had made to your post. I've undone it. [13][14]. Very sorry. --JN466 09:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching and fixing it quickly. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

good idea a couple years ago

Hi, I stumbled upon your village pump 2008 proposal and was just wondering if you found a way to accomplish this? -PrBeacon (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I liked ...

... the Ringo Starr quote on your user page :-) - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Forbidden Planet

We don't list "mentions". We only list in-depth references mentioned in a third-party source to establish notability. See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. Yworo (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That's much better than your original reason for deleting.

I think your point is well made with the following excerpt from your link.

"However, passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources."

Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Speed of light FAC

I have nominated speed of light for FAC. As a major contributor, please leave your 2cents on the review page.TimothyRias (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see

Please see my response at my talk page. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Here you go

...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog (talk • contribs) 17:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at User_talk:SMasters#Random_survey's talk page.

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bob K31416 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Apologies for this. I was alerted to a situation by another user (which you can see in the SPI case) which turned out to be a series of coincidences. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 22:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for getting that straight. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 06:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

re: blueboar's compromise proposal

Hi,

I wonder if you would reconsider your vote at

Wikipedia:V/First#Poll_V_FC_P_13_Blueboar.27s_compromise_-_move_discussion_of_truth.2Funtruth_out_of_lede_and_into_new_section

I understand you to say that you think the change is too big to have a chance to gain consensus, but right now the vote is running 7-2 in favor.  What is to be gained by being opposed to change here?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:V

Hi! I was just referring to the frequent mention of such concerns on that same talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

how to do that

Hi there. If you post something to a talk page and then want to take it back or change it somehow, you can easily do so, without mistakenly misleading readers, by using strikeouts: <s>here's the text you don't like anymore</s>. The outcome is this: here's the text you don't like anymore, allowing folks to read it still, but showing that you no longer mean to say that. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

My revert earlier

Sorry about reverting and running -- I was about to come over to your talkpage and let you know when my ride honked outside.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for coming over to explain. No problem. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Speed of Light

[My following message was copied by Excirial from User Talk:Excirial and pasted here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)] Hi. There was technical problem with your revert.[15] Although the before and after columns of the diff seemed to look OK, the actual page didn't. Some kind of glitch. Could you take a look? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the page just needed a good old WP:PURGE to set it right. The template seemed ok, so i just copy-and-pasted the infobox from an older edition to it and saved it. As you can see, no new revision was created (As the pages are identical), but the infobox fixed itself. Of course, someone could also have been playing with the infobox template. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently your fix also changed the way the article appeared in the diff display linked in my previous message. Anyhow, it all looks fine now.  : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal at WP:V

Hope it was alright? That I added the two versions to your proposal, just seems clearer to me. Regards. Crazynas ^t 18:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem editors

You stated "I found the above comment of Jayjg disruptive and with little substance. This talk page seemed to be heading towards a more productive and cooperative environment. Perhaps editors who disagree with it and similar types of comments should ignore them? Not sure how to handle this. See also a previous discussion."

Well one way to do with since it is clear Jayjg is continuing with his WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and boarder line violations of Wikipedia:No personal attacks warrant a trip to RFC/U with the editors that are being defamed also being contacted.--67.42.65.209 (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful message, which adds to my understanding of the situation and options. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Fyi

• [16]. Kind regards. Wifione ^Message 03:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Fyi Verifiability

Hi, you have enough experience as an editor not to leave a silly edit summary like that. Vandalism, indeed. <--N What happened, just too quick on the edit button, couldnt think straight? nfa, cheers NB-->. Thank you NewbyG ( talk) 06:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

For reference, subject edit.[17] --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

V question

Hey Bob, I didn't intend to insult you, my apologies if it appeared that way; I honestly just didn't understand your question! If you rephrase to help me understand, I would appreciate it...I'll even strike the word 'hell' if you like, it wasn't directed at you. More like "Holy crap, I don't get it....!!"  :) Dreadstar ☥ 01:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Leo Frank

I was quite impressed with your clever forensic approach to determine the accuracy of Leo Frank's height by looking at his various college debate team photos and then looking up the heights of the other team members sitting next to him in back of the Cornell Senior Year Book (1906). I got the impression from your remarks in Leo Frank talk that Tom Northshoreman caused you to leave the Leo Frank entry in frustration over his efforts to stonewall the addition of accurate information to the footnotes. Am I approximately correct along these lines and in these regards? I find you to be a breath of fresh air in the controversial Leo Frank entry in your honest efforts to make it neutral, reliable, verifiable and as accurate as possible. Editors like you who are able to disconnect themselves from the contentious and emotional drama surrounding controversial subjects are rare indeed. I can't help but think that at times you represent a model for all editors to strive. Carmelmount (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Bob K31416: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bob K31416, and thanks for your input to the mediation page. I'm very grateful for your help in collecting the views for step three of the mediation, especially as participation from the others in the mediation has been low. I notice, however, that you haven't agreed to the ground rules, added a statement for step one, or submitted a draft of the policy intro for step two. If you plan on participating further in the mediation, would you mind submitting these? I'll make the appropriate sections for you on the mediation page, and you can find the instructions on what you need to submit in the archives. Let me know if you have any questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the the typo fix. ;) At least I'm not as bad as this guy... — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:V mediation compromise drafts

Hello Bob K31416, this is just to let you know that to help find compromise drafts at the verifiability mediation, I would like each mediation participant to submit at least one draft at one work group that includes the best of all the previously submitted drafts of that work group. This will probably make more sense if you look at this section on the mediation page, but if anything is still unclear, just let me know. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: Shooting of Trayvon Martin

Thanks for changing "Skittles and iced tea" to "snacks". I was going to make that change too. It was things like this that caused the case to be unfairly tried in the public media. Intrepid-NY (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:V mediation step five

Hello Bob, this is another update about the verifiability mediation. We have now started step five, in which we will work towards deciding a final draft for each work group. I would like you to submit a statement about this - have a look at the mediation page to see the details of what you should include. The deadline for this step is 10.00 am on Friday 6th April (UTC), and unlike the other steps I am going to be strict about it. If you don't leave a statement by the deadline, then you won't be able to participate in steps six or seven. If you think you are going to be late turning in your statement, please let me know as soon as possible - I can't promise anything, but it will be much easier to work out alternative arrangements now than it would be after the deadline has passed. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Avatar (2009 film)

I have nominated it to be a Featured Article. Please see the link on the talk page. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 09:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Trayvon.

Both ages are in lead and his age was in the preceding paragraph by date same as Zimmerman. Put it back if you want, but it seems unnecessary to have the dates and then the next line stating his age again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the change made by ChrisGualtieri. Intrepid-NY (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

A response.

I'll try and make sure that my Talk comments seem to stay in the realm of its purpose. I would just like to remind you that in a moment of humanity, I thought I might respond to what seems like a frightened editor living in a moment where they aren't sure what the next week will bring, whether it is riots or peace, I hope for the best. So for a moment, I tried to identify with their concerns and fears and for that, there is no excuse. -- Avanu (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Shooting of Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman Section

Hello fellow editperson. Hope you are having a wonderful day.

Regarding your edit below:

13:13, 14 April 2012‎ Bob K31416 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (106,889 bytes) (+41)‎ . . (→‎George Zimmerman: added "His goal was to become a police officer." per source) (undo)

An edit request was made on the talk page regarding the exclusion of words to the effect that Zimmerman was studying criminal justice, or pursuing a career in criminal justice, etc. Discussion followed, and the edit request was granted. Please undo your edit above, or point me to the talk page where you got consensus on negating the previous edit request. Grrrr. Nah, I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to edit war me, and it was an innocent oversight. Thanks in advance. ArishiaNishi (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you aren't going to respond to me. That fact, that Z expressed, at some point in the last few years, an interest in pursuing a law enforcement career has contributed greatly to 'gossip' about him being a wannabe cop and vigilante. He's expressed interest in other careers as well, and followed those interests further than the interest in law enforcement. Look to his recent employment and past expressions of interest in that field. I'll end my attempts at dialog with you at this point. Cheers, Ari ArishiaNishi (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I just saw your above messages for the first time. I think that the discussion you were referring to was this. The problem text in the Wikipedia article was,

"At the time of the shooting, he was working toward an associate degree in Criminal Justice at Seminole State College."

I agree that the source did not say this. However, the source did say that his goal was to become a police a officer,^[41]

"He reenrolled in Seminole State College with the goal of becoming a cop in 2009 and was working toward an associate degree."

This info about his goal is properly expressed in the Wikipedia article and is explicitly supported by the source.

"His goal was to become a police officer.^[41]"

41. Los Angeles Times, Trayvon Martin case: George Zimmerman, mystery gunman

Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks for taking the time to respond. :) I don't think "with the goal of becoming a cop" meets the requirements of BoLP and Verifiablity/ReliableSource particularly "Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made." The author does not directly support the claim. He just states it. Do you feel that is enough for a BoLP, especially knowing how that statement has been used to malign? I'm not convinced that we should include it, and for BoLP, when in doubt, don't. imho Cheers ArishiaNishi (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia requirements you mentioned apply to Wikipedia editors, not to the authors of reliable sources. The subject material in the Wikipedia article is directly supported by the material in the reliable source. Wikipedia does not require that the material in the reliable source be directly supported by material in another reliable source. With regard to BLP, the main concern is not to include unsourced contentious material. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah... okay. Hey, thanks for clearing that up for me. I appreciate you taking the time. Really. ArishiaNishi (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Re:shooting lead

I want to advise more then edit on this matter since it has become a rather hot issue again. I'll prefer to keep my distance in edits and update as needed with commentary and direction. I am not opposed to rainy night because it was raining at the time this happened and several other callers on the 911 tape and police reports state that it was raining. The only thing it that it might sound cliche with 'it was a dark and rainy night when George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin as he was walking back from the 7-11 with skittles and iced tea.' Really, sounds almost like a fairy tale. Sharpton not withstanding of course. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the fact that it was a rainy night contributed to the chaos and confusion of the incident. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. When you recently edited Shooting of Trayvon Martin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Skittles (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) 10:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon lead

Bob - please see my latest comments at "Lead II" - my edit summ got smooshed , and was supposed to say that the material was not in the sources and is not in the body of the article - plus, when did we reach consensus about including details of Zimmerman's claims in the lead? Don't want to have a side discussion, so let's discuss over there, but i wanted to explain my last edit to you since you reverted me. Cheers Tvoz/talk 20:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability mediation - choosing final drafts

Hello Bob. This is a note to let you know about a discussion I have just started at the verifiability mediation. It is aimed at making a final decision about the drafts we use in step 6, so that we can move on to drafting the RfC text in step 7. If possible, I would like everyone to comment over at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Final drafts proposal. Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Questions, concerns?

So did you have any further questions? If you are planning on working on the topic and you don't have access to one of them you could ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability mediation - choosing the RfC structure

Hello Bob K31416! You are cordially invited to a discussion at the verifiability mediation in which we will be deciding once and for all what combination of drafts and general questions we should have in the RfC. We would love to hear your input, so why not hop over and let us know your views when you next have the chance. Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability mediation - to protect, or not to protect

Hello again Bob. Do you think the upcoming verifiability RfC should use a system of protection and transclusion, as was found in the recent pending changes RfC, or should we just keep the entire RfC unprotected? There are good arguments both for and against, and at the moment we are at a stalemate. Could you give your opinion on the matter? The discussion thread is here. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

SlimVirgin

You have made a serious accusation at RfA, specifically that this editor, who is currently active, is applying for admin responsibility via a sockpuppet account. I feel that you should either produce concrete evidence at the SPI page, or else retract and apologise. While you have not been here as long as either I or she have, you have been here long enough to appreciate the fundamental seriousness of your accusation. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

For reference, here is the actual comment.

"I suspect that this account History2007 has been sometimes used at WT:V by the the same person that has formerly used the account SlimVirgin there and who hasn't been posting messages there anymore with the account SlimVirgin. In other words, the account may be used by at least two people."

FYI, I was expressing a suspicion (rather than making an accusation which is more certain) that two or more people were using the account. Please note that it wasn't about pure sockpuppetry where one person alone uses two accounts. It was about a person with an account History2007, who I suspected of letting another person who has the account SlimVirgin, occasionally use the History2007 account. In other words, not the classic sockpuppet situation. I don't care to go into the details, so do what you feel you must, and I'm willing to accept not editing Wikipedia anymore. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

unsupported allegations in a request for admin

• - Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/History2007#Oppose

Hi - You alleged in a WP:RFA that a admin candidate was a sock puppet - your comment was objected to - and you were requested to retract it or file a WP:SPI - I repeat that request - either retract it or file a spi - its closed now, the RFA, but you are still requested to do one or the other - if you do neither I will request admin action against you and the removal of your editing privileges for unsubstantiated allegations - thanks - Youreallycan 20:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi - you have failed to retract and failed to make a SPI report -and although you stated, " I'm willing to accept not editing Wikipedia anymore " - you are still editing - please either retract your comment or file the report - Youreallycan 19:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could benefit by having your own Pooka. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Closing the verifiability RfC

Hi Bob. I just thought I'd drop you a note to apologise for never responding to you on Jimbo's talk page. I don't frequent the page - just happened to spot something and comment at the time, it didn't occur to me that someone might reply to me! Stupid I know. Looking at your tables, I think they're very well written, it is very similar to my calculations (which I no longer have), except I had combined "Support and wanting more change" and "Support with reservations" into "Would like to see change, but not this proposal".

Once you do that, you had 225 for the proposal and 220 not for it (51 not directly for it, 149 directly against it, 20 neutral to it) I believe my maths was a little different too, but not far off. So it was pretty even numbers in my head. The arguments themselves were pretty even too. As such, I felt that there was no consensus for a change, as I explained at the time. Perhaps I misspoke with "very large proportion", but "significant enough proportion" would be about right.

I'm not expecting you to necessarily agree with my interpretation of the data, but I thought at least I should explain where I was coming from. As for the close this time, I'd be available, but I'd also understand if the decision is that I'm not the right person to do it. It's not something I'd worry about either way. Worm^TT(talk) 12:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't buy it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability RfC - final call for alterations

Hello again Bob. This is to let you know that I have made a final call for alterations to the verifiability RfC draft. Unless there is a very good reason for it not to, the RfC will be going live around 10.00 am (UTC) on Thursday June 28. Even if you would not like to see any further changes to the RfC draft, it would be a great help if you could check over the draft page and make sure everything is working properly. Thanks for your continued patience with this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

trayvon martin revert

Your summary said reverted per talk, but I did not see any talk? I agree my original text ("Police report") was wrong, but capias was straight from the linked sources? I don't think that the specific name of the source is important really, but I think that "one police document" sounds odd. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In my edit summary, I gave the time stamp of my talk message. Did you have any trouble finding it from that? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

IBAN

Hi Bob K31416

I have gone back to my earlier version but I trust that I got your changes in OK. Martinvl (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: AN/I request

I have deleted the diffs from your WP:AN/I report. This report is a case for oversight; it should have gone directly there, per the directions when you filed the report at the administrators' noticeboard. (Admins can't suppress edits entirely; it requires a higher level of privileges)

I have also filed a report at WP:Request for oversight myself. Those reports are filed via email: for one thing, it keeps the sensitive information, and where the sensitive info is, out of the general edit history. —C.Fred (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Leo Frank Height Reliability and Sources

Any chance you could come to the talk page of Leo Frank and provide some input on the dispute over source reliability and verifiability concerning his height? The issue seems to be over Leo Frank's United States Passport (1907) and the Cornell Senior Yearbook (1906).Carmelmount (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The Cornell Yearbook looks more like a secondary source than a primary source. See WP:PSTS. The yearbook synthesizes information about class members' heights to form a table, just like a secondary source would do. Also, the yearbook wasn't written by Frank. So try to use that. If there's still a problem, let me know and I'll look over there some more. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Any chance you could respond to the height thread, It seems Tom Northshoreman is using the ignore technique to win his point. Wikipedia isn't about winning as they say, but consensus, it would be nice if you could chime in on this issue as you know the rules here on wikipedia better than I do. Carmelmount (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want to determine consensus, I suggest that you have an RfC. Otherwise, it may be an endless discussion among only a few editors. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I posted a message there, but that isn't a substitute for having an RfC if you need to determine consensus. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Shortcuts

When you implemented [18], the shortcuts got broken. I have fixed WP:BURDEN, but could you update the rest? Thanks. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Refs

We prefer review articles over primary research per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Copy of discussion continued at Doc James's talk page

== Trends in Colorectal Cancer ... ==

"Trends in Colorectal Cancer Incidence Rates in the United States by Tumor Location and Stage, 1992–2008". Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 21 (3). 411–6. Mar 2012. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-1020. PMID 22219318. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)

From the abstract section of the above source,

"Data from cancer registries in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program were analyzed to examine colorectal cancer incidence trends from 1992 through 2008 among individuals aged ≥50 years (n = 267,072)."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

In response to the message you left on my talk page. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beltrami identity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Functional (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) 10:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

[19] --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Calculus of variations, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Function and Variable (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) 11:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

[20] --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Functional derivative, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Functional (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) 11:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

[21] --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Bob K31416. You have new messages at TheRedPenOfDoom's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bob K31416. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Epeefleche.
Message added 04:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Very eloquently said, Bob. Thanks. I appreciate that you're probably waiting for Epeefleche to comment (I'm not sure he will reply). In any case, whether he decides to respond or not, you might want to give your view as an outside view? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Al-Ahliyya Amman University‎

Hi Bob K31416! I caught the discussion in regard to Al-Ahliyya Amman University, as I have had a bit of a concern in regard to ClaudeReigns. Unfortunately, in looking at the issues, it was clear that more had been copied over, so I had to remove it. However, I'll see if I can add some stuff back - I don't tend to rewrite directly from the copyvio, as that runs a risk of creating a derivative work, but I don;t like to just blank valid material either. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bob K31416. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Epeefleche.
Message added 09:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bob K31416. You have new messages at [[User talk:Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)|User talk:Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Time to close

His rants and comments which don't make any sense, combined with the editor's time zone, mean they are valid concerns. GiantSnowman 16:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you mean it as an attack, or advice for him? If it was advice, then you might have discussed it on his talk page instead. If it was an attack, then WP:NPA applies. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Advice, always - please AGF. GiantSnowman 16:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Then I suggest you edit and rephrase what you wrote. As I said on your talk page, mentioning the possibility that someone is drunk or incompetent is a personal attack. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not, they're statements of fact if true. GiantSnowman 16:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems like one could say that about most personal attacks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Most personal attacks are subjective, whereas my comments are either true or not. GiantSnowman 17:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks can just as well be true or false. You have concluded that this mostly doesn't happen, and I don't see how you came to that conclusion. Would you care to explain in more detail why you believe that? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone is drunk or not. Someone is incompetent or not. Whether somebody is a "stupid cunt" or "fucking bastard" etc. or not isn't as clear-cut - and certainly far more offensive. GiantSnowman 17:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

They are all personal attacks because they reflect negatively on the targeted person. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I've never found being drunk to be a negative (at least not until the next day...) GiantSnowman 17:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks mate

But I am done. The final straw was the brilliant performance by a few admins in a couple of arenas. I'm just waiting around to see if there's anything positive to come out of the RFC/U besides a pat on the back for Epeefleche. Feel free to keep in touch if you like: "daniel.judd@gmail.com". ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Positive things have already come out of it. People have become aware of the issue. The Al-Ahliyya Amman University article has been improved, to mention one, and I actually got interested in the place. When I looked at the first video in the external link, I got a kick out of seeing the real students, etc. after only working on text. Best wishes, --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Great work. But it's one article. Have you seen his contributions? Every other day it looks like the Red Sea. You and Bilby have done fantastic work, but it's not enough to workshop one article if there's no genuine collaboration on improvement on the 999 other articles touched. And, in the meantime, we've learnt that (1) the best way to avoid any real criticism of your own actions is to kick up drama; (2) offwiki canvassing is an effective strategy, particularly where the other side doesn't; (3) admins can bait; (4) while having an account to respect students is a good idea, and seems allowable through IAR, admins can ignore consensus and block anyway; and (5) admins are immune to NPA. A net negative. See you around. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Trying to fix things is tough. When considering what to do about it, I think it should be seen in the proper perspective when it comes to priorities in one's life. Remembering that, unlike a job where one needs to earn a livelihood, Wikipedia is entirely voluntary. --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Your recent editing history at Al-Ahliyya Amman University 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. Bilby (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:IZAK and WP:POLEMIC. Thank you. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bob K31416 and User:Danjel violate Wikipedia:Etiquette etc regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Epeefleche

You may or may not be aware that the RFC/U on Epeefleche's approach to removing easily and obviously verifiable content has closed. Epeefleche essentially ignored you and I, and refused to respond to the main point of my criticism. The closing admin, also, has gone on to completely ignore your and my perspectives also in taking Epeefleche's side. Yes, there was a roughly two-thirds split against my position (keeping in mind that there was some circumstantial evidence of offwiki canvassing, including that Epeefleche has a background of doing exactly that), but that's not a unanimous enough reason to categorically ignore one side, and then to criticise me. This is an outright endorsement of the strategies and approaches used by Epeefleche's side, i.e., that wikidramamongering is an effective defence against any criticism and to silence opponents.

I no longer care. This is the final nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned regarding the culture at wikipedia. I have retired, primarily due to the admin conduct around the wikidrama of this RFC/U, and do not intend to return. There are other communities around the web that I have found which are far less combative and far less tolerant of dramamongers, and perhaps I'll see you there. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bob K31416. You have new messages at Talk:Al-Ahliyya Amman University.
Message added 13:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drmies (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin: Undid Hidden/Archive

Bob, I wondered why you undid the hidden/archive conversation of Gaijin42? That conversation seems to be going no where by someone that is clearly uncivil, maybe even an internet-troll and/or sock-puppet. Thanks. ─ Matthewi ^(Talk) • 23:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Also confused by the action. The editor was blocked for disruptive editing for those specific edits, and is a was determined to be a sockpuppet(eer)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Betsyrossmadison
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Fly.2C_my_pretties....

Gaijin42 (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

(Link to archived version, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive788#Fly.2C_my_pretties.... . --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC))

Hi, I was away from the article for awhile and when I came back, I first encountered the hidden/archive material when I was looking at the Talk page history and tried to click on a link to one of the Talk sections and it didn't work. It turned out that the section was in the hidden/archive which broke the link. I thought that was inconvenient for editors working on the article. Then I gave a quick look at the hidden/archive section and noticed that two editors, Gaijin and Isaidnoway, appeared to make changes to the article according to what Betsyrossmadison wrote. So at least that part of it was a useful discussion and I undid the hidden/archive change because of that.

After I saw your above two messages, I decided to carefully read the whole thing. To my surprise, Betsy was making intelligent arguments that I thought were worth considering. I would have to follow up some more on Betsy's comments to evaluate them and determine whether and how to use any of the ideas in the article. Also, it seemed like Betsy was neutral regarding the two sides of the case, and was only criticizing the editing of the article, although if I missed something I would welcome anyone to point that out.

I noticed that Isaidnoway restored the material to hidden/archive status. I can work with that. It might be hard to keep in mind WP:DONTBITE in this case, but it might be worth considering to some extent. Regards. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

There is wide agreement that there were valid suggestions in his rants. As you pointed out, both myself and Isaidnoway made edits based on his posts. This should have been a sign to him that we were willing to work with him, and that he should tone it down. the issue was His civility, which was disruptive. Multiple editors and admins gave him advice to turn down the righteous fervor a few notches and WP:AGF, which he ignored and continue to use the talk page in a way that was disruptive. That is why the section was closed. Him then creating a sock to argue with was icing on the cake that he was not going to work within the rules and culture of the wiki, and he was blocked. If he comes back, and can keep his rant under control, I (and I assume others) are willing to work with him to address his concerns. But this article is already contentious enough without someone rampaging through on a drama crusade. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I was just reading the archived discussion and I wanted to make some comments, but unfortunately it was closed to discussion. So I looked at the page for the template that was used, Template:Archive top, and it said, "When used on a talk page this template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors." Looks like it was used improperly. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I was not aware of that restriction, and you are correct, however I would make the argument that the comments in question where also not within policy per WP:SHOUT, WP:MULTI WP:TPNO and in particular WP:TPO as the posts were considered disruptive by multiple editors and administrators. I only did the archive after the other editor had been blocked, and revealed as a sockpuppeter. In any case, even with the archive closed I and I assume the other editors would have welcomed any comments or questions by you or others. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to comment on parts of the archived discussion, for example the misuse of the word "house". It's inconvenient to try to work around the situation as is. Also, if Betsy wanted to continue, she could just start another section outside the archive and continue to annoy some editors if she wanted to, so the archive doesn't seem worthwhile. Also, the archiving may look like suppression of discussion that some editors don't like, using Betsy's tone as an excuse. Not to me because I AGF, but possibly to others, for Betsy or others may claim that this archiving is an example of how the process of editing of this article is biased or incompetent. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for WP:NOR

Hi Bob: Following your observations, I have introduced a proposal for adding to WP:NOR. You might like to comment? Brews ohare (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Meta-ontology

Hi Bob: Thanks for your input on this article. There is some stuff about Frege that could be provided. Maybe Snowded would accept it, who knows? My opinion right now is that it isn't worth putting this material together and then spending a month trying to get it past Snowded. For sure, Snowded is not going to assist in crafting any contribution to meta-ontology. Brews ohare (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked at Snowded's contribution list before and noted that in general he doesn't appear to contribute content but rather oversees that the content is proper. Which is fine. And I think that you are mainly a content contributor. From the article Yin and Yang, "Yin and yang are actually complementary, not opposing, forces, interacting to form a whole greater than either separate part; in effect, a dynamic system."

Anyhow, I'm glad you stopped by. Regarding one of the refs I found the following, "Indeed, much of the book is not easy to follow unless one is well schooled in the scholarly literature inspired by the work of Frege and Wittgenstein, including the works of Michael Dummett, Crispin Wright, Bob Hale, and others."[22] So it might discuss the connection between meta-ontology and Wittgenstein, or it might be found in some of the other refs. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Bob: I am sorry for the disconnect between us on meta-ontology. I hope it will not affect our ability to collaborate further. Brews ohare (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Introspection

Your link is fun. I see that you have managed to detach yourself from the WP bickering and still retain an ability to contribute. Congrats. Brews ohare (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Proposed replacement page 'Deflationism' for redirect to 'Deflationary theory of truth'

It is proposed to start a page to replace the present redirect from Deflationism to Deflationary theory of truth. An RfC can be found on its talk page at Deflationism. Please make comments and provide suggestions for improvement. Brews ohare (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Added paragraph on Carnap

Bob: I have added a summary paragraph to your presentation of Carnap that you may wish to look at. I also have suggested adding the adjective 'existence' to these two sentences: "questions regarding the existence of these kinds of entities are called internal existence questions" and "Existence questions that are not asked inside a linguistic framework are called by Carnap 'external existence questions'." In my mind, these additions are logically impeccable, and are neutral as to whether all internal and external questions are 'existence' questions, making no assertion at all about the source of our disagreement. I hope you might agree with these changes. Brews ohare (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to add "existence" there. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Is your preference based upon the view that including 'existence' is unnecessarily non-committal? That is, you feel that in fact Carnap intends to say (although he never says so explicitly) that all internal and external questions are indeed existence questions?? Brews ohare (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Our long discussions on the subject is enough for me. For now, I don't care to resume them. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Bob: It's Y/N question. Brews ohare (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Good bye. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for annoying you. Brews ohare (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

See answer

Hi, you have an answer here --Krauss (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

OR

Please read the section and the essays linked from WP:OR; it is clear you do not understand this policy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

For reference, ChrisGualtieri is referring to my last comment in this version of the Talk section http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin&oldid=563706006#Explanation . --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bob

I reverted you change to WP:Verifiability as that wording has a very strong consensus formed through a very long and sometimes heated debate. Usually it is best to discuss changing our core policies before the edit to know if it will stick.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It would help if you could say here what specifically you think is wrong with the edit. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That would assume that I felt there was something wrong with the edit to begin with Bob, other than we generally don't change core policy without discussion first. Such Bold edits are sure to be reverted when it applies to wording that went through such a huge consensus discussion. Consensus can change, but on WP:V, we need to seek a consensus change first.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

And actually, that discussion isn't even archived yet, it is still ongoing (I mistakenly thought that was the Burden of evidence section). No changes have been decided on. Please join the discussion. Since we are already on the subject, chances are that your simple suggestion of a single word change would not be objected to.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

answers

Template:Whydidyoudothat DS (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

OR and figures

Hi Bob: Thanks for your interest concerning OR as applied to figures. I appreciate your viewpoint. I have proposed an explicit amendment, which appears to be having the usual effect - nothing. Brews ohare (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Handling disagreement

Hi Bob: On Talk:WP:OR you have suggested:

A discussion between only the two editors doesn't seem to be making progress towards agreement, and seems pointless. It may be that there are no other editors who wish to get involved. For situations like this in the future, the two editors might try to reach some general understanding about what to do when they disagree on an issue and no other editors are interested in getting involved.

You have yourself had engagements with Snowded that went nowhere, and simply ended them with "Goodbye". Is that your advice? Brews ohare (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I am led to the observation that the articles in philosophy were written primarily before 2007 and since then have been subject only to small corrections. It seems clear that the number of Wikipedians interested in philosophy has dwindled so far that at most a couple of authors ever show up. There is no evidence of an interest in building content or adding to new articles. It is a dismal environment, mainly one of mindless bickering. Actual development of topics has vanished along with all awareness of the pleasures of joint development as motivation. Instead, focus is on 'scoring points' in some imaginary accolade. Brews ohare (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that interacting with other editors is part art, part experimental, and a big test of one's judgement. Also it might be helpful to consider the policy section WP:NOTCOMPULSORY as it applies to other editors and oneself. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

A good point, Bob. The issue it raises for me is just what the objective of the project is for various editors. The relation of community to content is complicated. In my opinion, the relation is tenuous for many, and community is paramount and defined without connection to an encyclopedia. It is a bunch of souls unconsciously looking for group therapy in an environment without expertise in such matters. Brews ohare (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin RfC

I'd appreciate if you would take another look at the RfC discussion on the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. I'm not sure whether you noticed that I proposed specific text for consideration on 16 Aug in the discussion thread. I hope you will comment on that specific proposal. Dezastru (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. As I recall, your proposal included a statement that consesnsus in an RfC previously found to be unacceptable, so I didn't pursue going against that consensus. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo page discussion

I don't think I missed your point at Jimbo's talk page, although anything is possible.

In fact, I am drafting a proposal for alternative ways to reach consensus. One aspect is a moderated discussion, which, of course, requires moderators. Those moderators would have specific powers, but not (necessarily) the admin set. In fact, I would envision them having some powers that admins do not have so it isn't a case of being an admin lite, it is a difference function.

Have you checked out Wikipedia:Mediation? It is not what I plan to propose, but it shares some elements.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to visit. I didn't think anyone had any interest in my last two messages at Jimbo's talk page.

Re "I don't think I missed your point at Jimbo's talk page, although anything is possible." — Not sure my ideas were clear enough in the short space I used to give them. I would appreciate it if you could say what you think I meant. It would be useful feedback for me with respect to how I communicated the ideas, and would help me if I try to explain what I meant to you.

Re "Have you checked out Wikipedia:Mediation?" — I wasn't aware of it so thanks for the link.

Re "It is not what I plan to propose, but it shares some elements." — I'm glad you mentioned that WP:Mediation is different since from what you mentioned so far I didn't see the difference. Feel free to give me a link to your proposal when you're ready.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk page talk

If you had posted something to my current talk page I would have seen it. Many other editors have done this in the past and it almost always works. But if you are worried about a stable location to have a talk page discussion, why not invite me to come here for that discussion? That seems to be a pretty obvious solution to the problem. So if you have something you want to talk about, put it here. I'll check back in a while to see if you do. 99.192.81.74 (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

Thanks for dropping by. I thought your message [23] was too inflammatory. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I reverted your recent changes to Chelsea Manning

I'm not averse to the changes you made, but I don't think they work very well the way you made them (I think "Also known as Bradley Manning and born Bradley Edward Manning" is a little clunky, and the format with only one makes the inclusion of the birthday really messy), but I just wanted to let you know. Cam94509 (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Any suggestions on how to add "also known as"? I think it's an important point that Manning isn't just known as Chelsea, but is also known as Bradley.

Also, I didn't understand the part of your message, "the format with only one makes the inclusion of the birthday really messy". Could you explain? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

So, one, I don't think it's all that important to note that Manning is also known as Bradley, especially given that "born as" gives enough information to make the matter clear. (The "format with only one" was a reference to your first edit, which had the problem that the inclusion of the birthday in the parenthetical didn't work at all.) Given that I don't think the inclusion is all that important, I wouldn't worry too much about fixing it up, but if you think it's super important, I'd reccomend finding a way to use the name "Bradley Manning" no more than once, and keep the birthday in the parenthetical. That said, I'd like to know why you think "Also known as" is important in this case. Cam94509 (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I responded at the article talk page. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

In re Talk:Chelsea Manning "Just Wondering"

Hey. I think a big part of the reason people are so dismissive of the hypothetical is because if the comment is specific to the Chelsea Manning article then, well, that was the focus of discussion on the talk page for about a month and a half with two major discussions on it and people are, understandably, pretty burnt out and wanting to move on. Conversely, if it is more related to some other topic (As suggested by 99.192) or is more general, then it really belongs, respectively, on the talk page for that article or Wikipedia talk:Article titles, rather than the talk page for the article on Chelsea Manning. Simple Sarah (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Although the title was the focus of discussion previously, I didn't recall this particular point being mentioned before. And if it had, an editor should simply point that out in the discussion.

I thought the hypothetical was sufficiently specific to the article. As an editor noted, when refactoring it's better to err on the side of caution.

I don't think we should give the impression of a talk page that suppresses ideas that the majority may not like since, for one thing, it gives the impression that the majority may not be correct and that their ideas may not hold up after further discussion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's the thing. To start with, I disagree with you on the hypothetical being novel, since it seems very similar to some of the arguments seen in the RMs (the first one especially), but without the offensive baggage many of those analogies had. In the end, it was determined that WP:COMMONNAME controlled and the move was made to Chelsea. Considering how much time, effort, words, and emotion were invested in the last 6 or so weeks in determining what the article title should be, I don't think bringing it back up so soon is helpful or very constructive.

All that being said, I do somewhat agree with you that the response to the question could have been better handled and that the original closing was probably too swift and just prolonged everything (With the caveat that you yourself have been a driving force in keeping things going). Simply responding to point to the RMs and COMMONNAME would have likely been sufficient. Simple Sarah (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)