User talk:Isaac Rabinovitch/Archive 01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi, Isaac. I sincerely apologise if you found what I said insulting. My intention wasn't to patronise you, or educate you, or anything of the sort - I simply noticed that your talk page was a red link, meaning nobody had welcomed you, and I went about doing that since a welcome was clearly overdue. I am sorry if the boilerplate notice was inappropriate, I simply used it for reasons of speed. For the record, I don't think you're doing anything wrong that I can see, and you do see to have a reasonable grasp of the important stuff. If there is anything I would offer in advice, it is to sign your comments by using the ~ key four times.

In order to make amends, I offer you a belated, non-boilerplated, utterly sincere welcome, and best wishes for your editing on Wikipedia. Cheers, Slac speak up! 00:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to be so touchy. I guess I misunderstood the context. Isaac R 00:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm no Robert baron[edit]

No, no, I didn't copy the list of Roberts onto Robert. In fact, I'd rather by far that all that "Famous" Robert nonsense go away altogether. All I did was put the usual disambiguation at the top of it -- the ones now called "Historical Roberts" (a heading I hate). I completely agree: there is no value whatsoever in any universe of a "List of Roberts" being in Robert. I loathe list articles in general, and sneaky ones like that in particular. (I.e. someone wrote a list. Someone else listed it on VfD. The decision was, rather than hurting feelings, to move it onto Robert. That then conflicted with the usual disambiguation, so someone decided to make a disambig as well as the "list!" To me, the whole Robert article should have the disambiguation tag and have only the people who have "Robert" as their whole name -- which would be anyone named "Robert of" as well as saint Robert. However, I did not copy the list junk onto Robert. I copied the disambiguation onto Robert which had previously been only the list. Geogre 23:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Please explain why you felt some of the items there did not belong. It doesn't look kosher when the policy you cited was a redlink. I have restored some (and not all) of the things that you removed. Chris talk back 23:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I screwed up the Wikitag, and you can't revise an edit summary. Thought people would figure it out. Anyway, the policy is at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. The gist of it is that you need to disambiguate when two or more things are known by the same name. So Central South Carolina and Central Hong Kong (commonly known simply as "Central") both belong on the page. But Central City does not -- the word "Central" is just a part of the name. (Unless "Central City" is also known as just "Central", but I haven't seen that claimed.)

I was wrong to delete some other entries that also are also widely known as "Central". (Sjorford put them back.) But I think most or all of the entries you restored are inappropriate for a disambiguation page. It's very common for people to include everything with X in the name on the X disambiguation page. But it's a mistake, since its makes the page less useful, and is thus against Wikipedia policy. ---Isaac R 00:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Sorry, but which edit were you refering to? Anything in particular? When I look at the recent changes, a lot of edits don't have useful summaries. LDan 23:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I notice that Robert (disambiguation) is up for deletion! For example William contains a William (disambiguation) page. What are our options? (unsigned)

  • Follow the link to the votes for deletion page, and submit any arguments you have for keeping it.---Isaac R 17:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

time zone[edit]

I apologize, but I don't know enough about timezones to help you out. I do know however, that we share names with the U.S. in four time zones, not three. I think it may fall under provincial jurisdiction, because I know Nunavut tried to move the boundaries so they'd all be under CST, but the citizens opposed. I would imagine the names are the same as in the U.S. for continutity reasons. -- Flag of Canada.svg Earl Andrew - talk 08:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thought this VfD might interest you[edit]



Thought I'd respond here instead of on VfD - the discussion there is drifting off-topic; I understand that the fellow who founded the WSA was involved in some sort of protest at the UN at about the time of the latter's foundation in the late 1940s, the result of which was that he was invited to address the General Assembly. It's just occurred to me that it's entirely possible that he had not actually founded the WSA at the time. I intend to delve further into this when I begin writing about the World Service Authority.--Gene_poole 03:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

stub image[edit]

Hi Isaac - just wanted to tell you that I've reverted the image you added to Actor-stub. Images put a lot of strain on the servers, so they were taken off a lot of the heavy-use templates about a month ago (see [2] for details). Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 05:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does this have anything to do with the fact that images often fail to appear?... Maybe a lot of the stubs need to go image-free.

Not sure, but that could be the reason. Some of the icons provide information (the maps on some of the geo-stubs do, where the regions being stubbed are a bit ambiguous, e.g., the North Africa stub template), but most of them don't. Many of the more frequently used stub templates are now icon free, though. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg

...maybe it would be a good idea to remove all the stub icons and put messages on the template pages asking people not to put them back...In any case, you should probably replace icons you delete with an HTML comment explaining the problem -- people probably don't check the history before adding graphics.

That's a good idea. One of those <!--comment--> type tags one each template would probably be worthwhile. There is a comment on the main stub template page saying not to change or add icons without discussing it at the Stub sorting wikiproject first, but again, people probably don't check there, either. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 00:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


As far as I'm aware, we do not include the installation of other popes or other heads of state on the date pages. I'm sure Benedict XVI's installation was only added as it's a very recent event. However, it's not particularly earth-shattering news, and is surely not going to be seen as a notable anniversary in future years. So why is removing the reference to Benedict XVI's installation childish? jguk 22:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • If the listing had been for the new head of state of the Vatican, you'd have a point. But the listing was for the lifetime leader of a religious denomination with nearly a billion adherants. I think that's probably as notable as "Ralph DePalma makes his racing debut at the Briarcliff Trophy Race? in Westchester, New York." or "The world's largest lollipop weighing 3,011 pounds (1,366 kg) is made in Denmark". In any case, expressing your notion of "notable" by starting a revert war goes beyond childish and passes into infantile. ---Isaac R 23:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandalising my page[edit]

How Dare U vandalise my userpage. I would have to fire you since u put this image.

 King Jimbo 07:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
You have no chance to survive make your time. All your base are belong to us! Move every Zig! HA HA HA HA HA.... LOL.... Rickyrab | Talk 19:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC) ahh, those were the days, even if the guy who made the above comment was being a troll and/or a vandal. Rickyrab | Talk 19:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Concerning King Jimbo[edit]

I did notice you had edited his page. I've notified the administrator User:Mindspillage about the incident (both your "attack" on Jimbo's page and his on yours), and I'll leave it to her to take any further steps. I do not see it as tragic, just refrain from doing it again. Phils 20:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I know u are also an idiot, because I am the owner of the company. King Jimbo 04:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Christopher Isham[edit]

You write: I just want to express the opinion that your attitude is detrimental to a project we both care about.

Well I feel exactly the same way, and I think I'm justified in reproving you for not even bothering to do even the tiniest amount of research. Please don't act as if your ignorance and laziness amount to an excuse for slapping silly templates on perfectly good stubs. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Does this really sound too strong? You have been acting in an extremely hostile and obnoxious manner, parading your ignorance like a badge and replacing a template expressly removed by me on the basis that you know lots of theoretical physicists so they can't be encyclopedic. If you wanted a pat on the back, I'm sorry I can't give you one. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

You keep falsely accusing me of being uncivil, insulting you, etc. I'm only reminding you not to just slap cleanup templates on articles that you freely admit you're not qualified to judge, when they've been removed by someone who has made the effort to do his homework. It's extremely counter-productive. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm patiently according you good faith and hoping that you will stop accusing me of incivility. If my words have offended you, I apologise. However my criticism of your dismissive attitude towards a clearly notable individual, and your evident indisposition towards doing the minimum of research, and your abuse of cleanup templates, stands. If you don't know anything about a subject, popping a stub template into the article will make it easily accessible without needlessly defacing its appearance. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


I'm not sure if you've seen the message I left on SOAP's talk page recently, but I cleaned up the article in temporary form at User:Ben Babcock/SOAP and would like some opinions before implementing it. Ben Babcock 12:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


I'm really puzzled as to what you have in mind. The word "endless" obviously carries at least one of the technical meanings of "infinite" in mathematics: the sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, ... of positive integers is endless, or, synonymously, it is infinite. Moreover, when I said infinite has many meanings, I meant specifically precisely defined technical meanings in mathematics. Did it seem as if I meant something else? Michael Hardy 20:08, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I still don't think "Endless" is another word for "Infinite",

I never thought it was simply another word for the same thing, but rather that it's the same as at least some of the technical meanings of infinite in mathematics.

In technical mathematics there are

  1. infinite sets and their cardinalities (including countably infinite and uncountably infinite sets),
  2. the "infinities" of calculus,
  3. the the "infinities" of measure theory,
  4. the "infinities" of projective geometry,
  5. which occur not only in hyperspaces at infinity, but in primitive form in, e.g., trigonometry (consider the graph of the tangent function),
  6. the "infinity" of complex analysis,
  7. the infinities of non-standard analysis -- quite different from the above,
  8. the sorts of infinity one considers when studying Dirac's delta function (this can be multiplied by, e.g., non-integer real numbers, getting different values),
  9. and various others.

Are all of these "endless"? No. But is "infinite" (in one or more of these senses) what is meant by "endless"? I think so. "Infinite series" and "infinite sequences" in mathematics are endless. Michael Hardy 23:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

My attitude is just fine[edit]

I'm not going to put up with personal attacks any more. RickK 20:49, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Third Law[edit]

Dude, it's Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. It's joke. I have no existence, per se. KevinBot 04:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, Perl is very pretentious. But since my bot is actually a highly extensible executable application written in C# putting the three laws on the user page is slightly less pretentious, but just barely. Kevin Rector (talk) 14:09, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:Uncle G[edit]

Please refrain from editing other users' user pages. It is considered extremely poor Wikipedia:Wikiquette. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:35, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

The page was deleted at Uncle G's request [3]. However, any admin can see the log of the deleted page, and you were listed as an editor of the page this morning:
#  10:15, May 16, 2005 . . Uncle G ({{db|CSD criterion #U2:User and talk pages on request of the user}})
# 02:04, May 16, 2005 . . Isaac Rabinovitch ()
To refresh your memory, your edit simply contained the link: This is not Uncle G's user page. Cheers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:22, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
You asked "How can I edit a page that doesn't exist". I'm saying that you created the page (as is quite evident in the logs), and Uncle G requested that the page be deleted, so it now currently does not exist. I'm not going to respond to this issue further, as there is nothing substantive here and I don't want to dwell on this subject further. I did not mean to sound accusatory, I was merely letting you know that the editing of another user's page is frowned upon - If you are saying that you did not do the edit of his page that I am refering to, then I would check to make sure that you have not left your account logged in at a public computer, or that your password has not somehow been compromised. Cheers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:02, May 16, 2005 (UTC)


Antigonish—Guysborough - This is kind of a test case.

Category:Formal Logic[edit]

As per the discussion on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 12, there was no consensus to delete. The category is now empty. As you were the leading proponent to keep, I was wondering if you'd like to populate the category. Thanks. --Kbdank71 13:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I posted anote about the CfD to Category talk:Formal logic, with a summary of Issac & Radiant's discussion. I don't think there are any articles that should go in category Formal logic. --- Charles Stewart 13:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Disputing some inclusions[edit]

In general I dispute the value of the formal logic category for two main reasons:

  • I think the usability of the category system is reduced if we have deep category hierarchies so we should aim for highly specific subcategories, rather than very broad ones;
  • Logic does not cleanly separate into the formal and informal. In particular, if logic has a formal logic subcategory, it suggests that everything else is informal, when in fact much of the content contains both formal and informal logic.

In particular two subcategories you have put in formal logic are problematic. Eg.

I'm reversing these inclusions. --- Charles Stewart 17:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Moving this discussion[edit]

I think the best place to discuss our dispute will be on the Category talk:Logic discussion page, since that page has a bit more visibility. Probably input of fellow editors is what we need at the moment. I'm around for the next three hours, but after that I will be away from the internet until Tuesday. I'll post a message to the talk page shortly. --- Charles Stewart 18:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Internamespace links[edit]

There's a sort of rule that the main namespace of wikipedia shouldn't refer to content in other namespaces, because syndicates of wikipedia generally make use only of the main namespace. I'm deleting the ref to category:logic in computer science in logic in computer science.

I'm sorry if I seem to be disagreeing with everything you do: I don't mean to be unsupportive. This interwiki mistake is one I made not too long ago. --- Charles Stewart 18:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


I can't help but notice that my surname sounds an awful lot like yours. I wonder if there are are any other Rabinowitzes or Rabinovitzes or Rabinovitches around Wikipedia... Rickyrab | Talk 19:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

You're right, muh fellow Rabinowitz... :) Rickyrab | Talk 19:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


A merge of the three related articles (Airspeed, Indicated airspeed and True airspeed) sounds like a good idea. I'll check the work to see if it needs further WP formatting. Additional response on my talk. Leonard G. 01:29, 22 May 2005 (UTC)