User talk:Arthur Rubin

Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 28 days are automatically archived to User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2024 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives

2005 2006 2007 2008
2009 2010 2011

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by .

Status

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.

TUSC token 6e69fadcf6cc3d11b5bd5144165f2991

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Commons File licence

Hi Arthur. I added a minor comment on Commons:User_talk:Mr.Johnson1982#Chip_image. Your simple nowiki-ed demo sample had 2 disadvantages: it does not respect the indent level, and (long) text lines flow to the right out of the box (in a narrow browser window). I placed a html work-around at it, perhaps you find further use for it. Kind regards.
▲ SomeHuman 2011-09-19 12:02 (UTC)

Umm...

I'm sorry, but what type of vandalism I did? I am not a mean user, I am nice. Pikachu4170 (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism was in your edit summary. The edit was merely extremely against Wikipedia guidelines; but test4 redirects to vand4. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So that means i am fine or not? Because I don't want to be banned. If I do get banned, I have to leave Wikipedia and NEVER use it. Pikachu4170 (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not likely to get banned, yet. Although you have carefully erased your warnings, that was only your first "final warning", so you would normally only be blocked for a repeat violation, and (if you hadn't erased your warnings), only for a short period of time. As it stands, the blocking admin might not check your precise warning structure, and give you a longer block. Still, you're unlikely to be banned, or even to have an indefinite block. Please stop what you're doing when warned, though, or at least ask (usually on the article talk page) whether your edit should be made. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The left of production rule cannot be null

The left of a production rule in a grammar can be null. Here is the proof:

Imagine there is a rule in the grammar that says:

λ -> a B C | A B c | ...

And there are other rules such as:

A b C -> X y Z w

I can construct a grammar from this grammar that doesn't have null on the left of production rule and produces EXACTLY what this grammar produces:

Let's introduce a new nonterminal called L (named after lambda)

First rule is:

L -> λ

Then, all the rules are present, except between every two elements (terminal or nonterminal), there is an L. Therefore you get:

L -> L a L B L C L | L A L B L c L | ...

That was for the rule where it said λ -> ...

And for the rest of the grammar:

L A L b L C L -> L X L y L Z L w L

This new grammar produces the same words as the first grammar. In the first grammar, you could put an expression anywhere "out of the blue" because there is a λ between any element and it could produce an expression (because of the rule λ -> ...). In the second case, this role is played by L where, whatever you produce has L's between any non-L element. L can produce the expressions λ could produce in the first grammar and is itself reduce-able to λ.

This was a question in the book "An introduction to formal languages and automata" by Peter Linz which asked what are the implications of having λ on the left of a production rule. I came with this proof that in fact the restriction is not necessary. After no one believing me in the university (like you here), I emailed Peter Linz himself and he said that in fact that restriction is just for simplicity and in Turing's thesis is also not mentioned. Unfortunately I don't have that email anymore to show you.

I couldn't find on the internet the original "paper" that defined unrestricted grammars, but I came across this wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_grammar that also states that there are no restrictions on either side of the production rule.

P.S. If you are interested in an example of such a grammar, imagine this

λ -> ()

This grammar produces nested parentheses. Without using λ, you had to write it like this:

S -> (S) | SS | λ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahbaz Youssefi (talk • contribs) 16:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you can emulate a language in which the left side of the production rule empty by one which doesn't have such, but that doesn't mean that you should change the definition to allow such rules. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the benefit of changing

$(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}N(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}$

aka

$(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}\backslash \Sigma ^{*}$

by

$(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}N(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}\cup N^{0}$

aka

$(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}\backslash \Sigma ^{+}$

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that is NOT the definition. The definition is that there are not any restrictions (hence the unrestricted grammar). YOU are adding a restriction added for convenience in the definition and you are telling ME that I'm changing the definition? Besides, I merely put one sentence saying that restriction is not necessary. Is that something that should be hidden from readers of wikipedia? Was what I wrote wrong?

Second, you are making it complex. I'm not changing

$(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}N(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}$

to

$(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}N(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}\cup N^{0}$

but in fact I am changing it to

$(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}$

So the definition is NOT the more complicated

$(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}N(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}\rightarrow (\Sigma \cup N)^{*}$

but the simpler

$(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}\rightarrow (\Sigma \cup N)^{*}$

Just for the sake of those out there that actually wonder why that restriction exists, please let them know that it is not a must, but merely a convenience.

If you want further proof I could try to find a paper or some source as reference.

And my question is, what makes your knowledge superior than mine that you decide to revert my change before studying it? Isn't wikipedia about collaborating? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahbaz Youssefi (talk • contribs) 22:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the definition of formal grammar includes that there must be a not-terminal. Although any unrestricted grammar can be checked by a non-deterministic Turing machine, and the possible states of a non-deterministic Turing machine can be checked by a formal grammar, there are still reasons why the formalism of the formal grammar should be distringuished from the unrestricted grammar. The mere addition of the empty string, although easy to confirm as inessential (as both of us have), is pointless.

A similar argument could be used to the one above (not going through non-deterministic Turing machines) to allow any non-empty transformation string would be to add a nonterminal

c'

for each terminal c; in the rules for non-empty strings, replace all terminals

c

by the corresponding

c'

on both sides of the rule, and add closing rules

c'\rightarrow c

for each terminal c. This clearly shows the languages accepted by an unrestricted grammar and a formal grammar are the same. It still doesn't support your additions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you saying that unrestricted grammars are NOT part of formal grammars? Because if they are, that immediately means the restriction of having one nonterminal on the left would be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahbaz Youssefi (talk • contribs) 12:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics and the year zero

Hi Arthur,

I provided information of interest to the subject matter about our not having a year zero and you deleted it. The reason you are stating is that the information is not subject related. However, if there are no mathematical systems in which zero is absent, then this helps readers understand that our having a calendar without a zero is a man-made accomplishment (similar to art, and not nature). There is no reason to ridicule the man-made result, but it is good for the wiki-readers to know the difference why the calendar arrived without a zero. Here is the information one more time, and I hope you will revert your deletion, since wiki is about information on the subject matters, and the artful aspect of it should not be left out of the picture.

If you (or others) can write a better introduction, then I appreciate that. From a mathematical perspective, systems always come with a zero (i.e., a blank spot).

Mathematics

Whether systems do indeed exist without a zero is a question that can be answered by mathematics. Please note that systems are based on the people adhering to them, such as historians who never use a year zero. This segment on Mathematics does not undermine the calendar as currently used, because its use is not based on mathematics.

When investigating the natural numbers, a pattern can be distinguished among these numbers that leads to the forced use of zero. From this, the conclusion is justified that all numerical systems automatically come with a zero.

Source: http://www.pentapublishing.com/Math.html

Greetings,

Fredrick FredrickS (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Penta Publishing is not an inherently reliable source, and the author ( Fredrick Schermer) doesn't appear to be a known expert in anything. We can't use it. Perhaps Wikibooks or Wikiversity could use your material. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2305843009213693951

I closed the discussion and merged 2305843009213693951 into Mersenne prime. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The David Ray Griffin Page

Dear Mr. Rubin:

I see that it is not possible to edit the introduction at the top of the Griffin page.

There is a link to your name there.

Are these two things connected?

The page fails to mention that Dr. Griffin was professor of philosophy of religion and theology, from 1973 to 2004, at the Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University.

Thank you,

PureLogic PureLogic (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the lede, isn't it? To clarify, are we talking about the page David Ray Griffin, or some other page? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Arthur Rubin: To clarify, yes, the title of my post to you was the David Ray Griffin page. There is no edit capability there. How do I edit that? PureLogic (talk) 06:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be protected. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

35

you obviously do not now anything about my country, and I am so sorry about that. Wikipedia is obviously not free and it does not share knowlege..it is a faschistic place for the privileged molesters. The fact that I posted is true. Live long and prosper my mathematician friend. 35! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.60.137 (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I haven't upset you too much

I've tried to preserve as much information as possible in the merge but there has been a significant amount of data loss due to my inability to locate proper sources. I want you to know that I'm still searching for good sources for the missing information and when I find them it is going back in. Serendi ^podous 19:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, btw I'm talking about Timeline of the far future Serendi ^podous 11:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that one out.... Some of the really distant times might be taken from The Five Ages of the Universe (which I reviewed on Epinions, once.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

List of 'Occupy' protest locations. Another clueless admin who makes changes without discussion. I have been editing the page. Have you? My page name change is uncontroversial. If you had read the discussion and followed the links you would have seen that the discussion was not about whether single or double quotes were used. Admins like you are why many people quit Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the page from List of "Occupy" protest locations to List of 'Occupy' protest locations while discussion of a move to List of Occupy protest locations is in process is improper, breaking the automatated links to the correct discussion, which I'll have to restore. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had already fixed most of the links, and the bot had fixed the others already. By the way your edit comment about "correct grammar" is actually incorrect. I hate it when admins make up stuff as they go along. News media are using single quotes not double quotes. And double quotes in URLs are problematic when sharing URLs. Single quotes in URLs are not a problem. By the way I am an admin on Wikia, and I know the admin game. I try not to sound more authoritative and knowledgeable than I am. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Single quotes in URLs are problematic, as well, for different reasons. And moving articles while a move request is in progress is still disruptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just admit you are wrong. The disruption is on your end. Keep making up stuff. The discussion was basically concluded. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, whether or not your moves would be correct, it is improper to move A to B while a discussion of a move from A to C is in progress, no matter how slight the differences. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is only improper in your opinion. Next time try thinking more instead of blindly following rules, and jumping in. It is not a math equation. "If it aint broke, don't fix it." --Timeshifter (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you broke it. Some of the pointers were adjusted, but the move section itself was misleading, at best. You should make your arguments for the move in the appropriate forum, namely Talk:"Occupy" protests#Requested move. I see you haven't done that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep digging yourself in deeper. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Admins like you are why many people quit Wikipedia". You know, I am not a big contributor, but when I corrected something many many people think wrong (including this admin here), he just reverts the change and doesn't listen to reason (As he left my talk with him here unanswered too). Yeah, you know what? I won't give a damn about Wikipedia anymore. And because of what you did, I won't be able to trust what I read in Wikipedia anymore unless I cross check it with some other sources (because I know even if some people want to fix the errors of Wikipedia, certain admins don't allow it) Shahbaz Youssefi (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you "corrected" was not wrong. The fact that "formal grammars" (as we, and the reliable sources, define them) and "unrestricted grammars" recognize the same languages, does not necessarily make them the same subject. I think they might be, but none of the reliable sources so far have commented on that. Regardless, changing the subject of the article formal grammar to that of unrestricted grammar is inappropriate, unless the reliable sources do so. The sources in my possession distinguish the concepts. If you had proposed changing the subject, we could have discussed that, and the articles might have been merged. But changing the definition to something not used in the real world is just wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose

I made a new proposition on the article's talk page. Could you kindly comment? Cheers, Racconish^Tk 08:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continuum hypothesis

The point of my proof is that CH is independent of ZF but.... It is not independent of ZFC and Induction. So you need to assume two things... and then you prove something you knew... and something you didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatisFGH (talk • contribs) 00:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to check, but what do you mean by "Induction"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Learn what a trichotomy is, and what strong induction is, then you should be able to understand why I am right even though Cantor was also correct.

Don't worry, you'll be able to understand it when I explain it to CMI and get my million. Thanks for looking though, I appreciate people asking questions so that I can show there's nothing wrong with it.

WhatisFGH (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what you mean by Induction may be the V=L. Either that, or it's inconsistent with ZF. I can't tell which, at the moment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Robinson

a cool hip teacher, and is very knowlageable on the american liturature arts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indians15 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at HardBoiledEggs's talk page.
Message added 16:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 16:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks

Arthur, I've your edits and comments on a number of subjects I edit, all I gotta say is right on man. You seem to edit in a fair and non-partisan way which is great. I think it is rare to find people willing to give both people the time of day at an argument. Keep up the good work, we need more editors like you.

--Andy0093 (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Please view the discussion at the article's talk page concerning the content in question, and accept this friendly reminder that you have made three reversions on The Colbert Report article within 24 hours, and that your last edit was not a minor one, as it removed content as part of a dispute, and that rollback should not be used for such. Thank you. - Sudo Ghost 07:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Arthur Rubin! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Office Hours

Hey Arthur Rubin! I'm just dropping you a message because you've commented on (or expressed an interest in) the Article Feedback Tool in the past. If you don't have any interest in it any more, ignore the rest of this message :).

If you do still have an interest or an opinion, good or bad, we're holding an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 GMT/UTC in #wikimedia-office to discuss completely changing the system. In attendance will be myself, Howie Fung and Fabrice Florin. All perspectives, opinions and comments are welcome :).

I appreciate that not everyone can make it to that session - it's in work hours for most of North and South America, for example - so if you're interested in having another session at a more America-friendly time of day, leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Executive Order 13514

Hi! I've been watching 99.190.85.15 and yourself adding and deleting a link to Executive Order 13514- ie 13514 . When I follow the link it takes me to a reasonable copy of http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-24518.pdf . Is there a reason that you hate the s: link so much? Could you tell the guys at Talk:Plug-in hybrid so that perhaps you two can come to an agreement because continually adding and deleting it with no real explanation is driving the rest of us crazy. Thanks. Stepho talk 06:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a pseudo-link. Aside from jumping around so that enforcing 3RR is impossible, there's no reason not to use an external link to the actual GPO URL, if a link is necessary. I don't really see it as necessary, but it's not harmful.

The editor would prefer creating an article Executive Order 13514, but can't seem to find anyone to create it. I suppose any executive order meets the WP:N standard, but, in order for there to be a valid article, there has to be some reliable secondary source which talks about it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. It seems reasonable to have a single link to the real source instead of a copy. Could you put those thoughts at Talk:Plug-in hybrid so that the other editor might see your view. I've found that simply reverting changes just makes the other side more determined. But informed debate often brings the desired outcome quicker - or at least gains you more supporters. Thanks. Stepho talk 11:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Perhaps you could add a in-heading summary to describe the gist of your proposal here. That page is getting swamped in proposals already, and I think participation is dwindling because of WP:TLDR. Having some meaningful headings would probably help. Per WP:TPG I could even do it myself, but I'd rather have you summarize your own proposal. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Law school?

Arthur, what in the name of God are you doing in law school? Strikes me as a perfect waste of a first-rate mind and an expensive graduate education in mathematics. LOL

BTW, the so-called "TQ" punctuation that I learned in grade school always placed semi-colons and colons outside the quotation marks in a partial quote of original text. I don't believe that's an ALWD innovation; I believe it's a standard part of the usual American system of quotation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALWD specifies that only periods and commas are inside the closing quote, and implies that colons and semicolons use LQ; I believe standard TQ usage was that colons and semicolons are outside the closing quote.

As for law school; I've always been interested in law, and have been unable to find a job in my regular profession as a (primarily aerospace) engineer. If you can suggest employment....? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think a Ph.D. in mathematics would be in high demand for a variety of positions, but what do I know? I'm just a lawyer. If you're serious about being an attorney, I would suggest you take every available elective regarding patent law and intellectual property. If your law school has an IP law journal, I would jump on that, too; if your school doesn't, other IP law journals would still love to have a topical article written by someone with your background in engineering and mathematics. You bring something to the table that virtually no other first-year law student in America does, and IP/patent law strikes me as a natural progression for your future career. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween!

Plarem has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!

If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Happy Halloween! – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 15:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will not make an edit war

Dear, Arthur, I see that you and I disagree as to the reliability of the book, Annals of the World. Where I use it as the foremost reference point for Biblical and Jewish history, you seem to deem it so wrong that any article that references it must be totally destroyed. Every time I try to defend its integrity, or at least the rational to leave the article standing, you flatly ignore me and simply direct me to Wikipedia policies that are non sequitur. So I'm going to take this from a different approach this in the nicest possible way. You tell me, out of your infinite wisdom, what exactly constitutes a reliable, verifiable source? (If the problem with Annals of the World is not because its not a reliable, verifiable source, then you have no right deleting it, as per WP:Accuracy). If for no other reason, I would just like to know what constitutes an accurate source, simply so that my work doesn't get deleted again.

By the way, I also don't understand, even if that one reference was totally unacceptable, how that justifies deleting the whole article. If you actually read my work, you would know I quoted many works outside of Ussher. What makes Ussher so evil, that any article he's mentioned in must be deleted, at the sacrifice of all the other reference? What exactly are you afraid of? But more important than this, I would just like you to give me a definition of a reliable source, please. LutherVinci (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your article "List of Canaanite rulers was a content fork from Canaan#List of Canaanite rulers as it was on the same subject but had different information, even if it were reliable. Some might say it was a POV fork. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been nice to use FORK instead of ACCURACY in your edit summery, or at least posted a better explanation on the discussions page. Interestingly, I would like to point out that though you deleted the content by he rational of FORK, your still used the word ACCURACY and made a comment on Ussher Chronology. It would be my suspicion, then, that you deleted the article because you don't like James Ussher, (as we've had conversations about him before) but trumps up the charge of FORK when you know that Ussher is actually a reliable source.

Yes, I believe your allegation that my article was a fork is unsubstantial. Expanding and organizing an existing page is not a fork, unless you can point me to a policy that says it is, otherwise your made that charge up. I did not change any of the information in it, as you claim, I instead added more information. Now, it is true that I did not transfer and expand all of the information in the existing article, but that is because I hadn't finished it (do you not notice the "Under construction" sign?).

Finally, "Some might say" is an unsubstantial allegation. The only force in the universe that has the right to prosecute me is not you, nor "some people", nor any administrator, but the law. And that law is Wikipedia's policy.

Now, with that in mind, you still haven't properly defined a reliable, verifiable source. Nor have you provided a policy that says I can't expand an article. I ask you - no, I beg you - for some reasonable explanation. LutherVinci (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided a reliable source. As has been pointed out when you made the chronology from Annals of the World the primary chronology in multiple articles including 24th century BC, it's not the generally accepted source. You should only add detailed chronologies where such generally accepted sources exist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning

See Talk:Zero-Net-Energy USA Federal Buildings. 141.218.36.152 (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

350 ppm in Planetary boundaries is a target.

Prepare to Talk:Climate change mitigation scenarios. 141.218.36.152 (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels

See Talk:Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels. 141.218.36.152 (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC) See Talk:Indirect_land_use_change_impacts_of_biofuels#Include_global_warming_wikilink_and_Portal:global_warming. 141.218.36.152 (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]