This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 2010 | Archive 2011 | Archive 2012 | Archive 2013 |
Hi Arthur, would you explain to me what criteria qualifies something as a "test" for divisibility that modulo division doesn't meet? I'd like to try and convince you otherwise. ;) The definition on the page says "A divisibility rule is a shorthand way of discovering whether a given number is divisible by a fixed divisor without performing the division, usually by examining its digits.". Modulo division does exactly this, it examines the digits, doesn't actually perform the division, and it is very much a shorthand method compared to long division; it is also just as easy to do as the tests such as summing the digits. And regardless of the divisibility rule's declared criteria, calculating the remainder is the de facto "test" for divisibility, it is the most true test there is for divisibility. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that a modulo operation isn't a "test". — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidAugustus ( talk • contribs) 16:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
FYI: Per the talk page, I added "acrimonious relationship" in an attempt to please/make some sort of compromise with the article's subject. I prefer the original language you reverted, too, though. Location ( talk) 14:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
09:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
As a participant of the discussion Talk:Palestine#Requested_move regarding naming change of the page Palestine, you might be interested in discussion Template talk:Asia topic#State of Palestine on changing the title "Palestinian territories" to "State of Palestine" at Template:Asia topic. Thank you. Greyshark09 ( talk) 22:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
09:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Arthur, since I commented on this at WP:REFUND I'd better let you know you directly as well. Whilst I don't approve of Davodd restoring his article himself, your re-deleting it has just made matters worse. First new facts and sources had been added which together with the links to the rather rich Italian and German pages would make it clearly pass A7 in my eyes, and secondly reverting an action that you already considered wheel warring doesn't stop it all but only adds another spin to the wheel. At this point the refund board isn't really the place to turn to for a fourth admin to make a call, so I kindly ask you to reconsider your deletion. Thanks -- Tikiwont ( talk) 19:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The edit is: [2]. BTW, in it you added # (your turn), which was lost when I reverted your edit. S. Rich ( talk) 14:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC) PS: Just now, after I have reverted your edit, signed X's, added my own comment, edited my own comment, I see where X had said "Okay.. feel free to edit." I had missed it because the "feel free" was above the ersatz sub-section heading. (The misleading heading has been removed and X's list has been indented.) Still, I strongly recommend that we limit the discussion to whether a list should be in place. 14:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Arthur Rubin. I see you've been looking at Demonstrated Preference. It appears to me that the entire article is SYNTH, OR, not written as an encyclopedia article, among other problems. I left a note for X on the talk page, but frankly I am afraid of sparking a futile edit war so I am holding back further activity there and would welcome any contribution you can make. '''SPECIFICO''' ( talk) 18:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I see that you have removed the conspiracy theory on how the HAARP affects weather, as if it was "More Non-sense". Of course it could be more non-sense but it is a conspiracy theory nevertheless! You have to be careful not to cloud your mind with your own personal believes that it is non-sense or not. You have to look around, investigate and research the field. Many times, I have seen this theory in documentaries, even in main stream TV. This "Conspiracy theory" exists, and deleting on the pretense that it is non-sense does not serve anybody that looks for general knowledge. We could ask you, suppose that this HAARP theory is real, then what is the scientific basis principles that could make HAARP affect weather in the minds of the people that believes in the HAARP conspiracy??? What will be your answer after you have done your research on that mater? -- Fady Lahoud ( talk) 00:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
This is one of them Youtube (History chanel) I am not asking you to believe in the reality of it, I am asking you if you believe that there is a conspiracy theory on it. -- Fady Lahoud ( talk) 06:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC) This is another one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0ucpy1WYXY -- Fady Lahoud ( talk) 06:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Part 2/5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl2M9oGkjRs Part 3/5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MppReIR6hQ Part 4/5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyXu9Taa6_4 Part 5/5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNJKFhVpDEM Etc.
Look at all these: http://www.youtube.com/user/HaarpWeapon2011/videos?view=0
So you want more??? It seems that all around Wikipedia there is more information than Wikipedia... And Wikipedia is suffering the lack of contents. -- Fady Lahoud ( talk) 07:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. My memory is the opposite. There's certainly no section for it in the example layout at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years. I believe that a decision was made to replace such sections with articles such as Works of fiction set in 1989 - though there isn't one for Works of fiction set in 1345 (as yet). Deb ( talk) 21:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I have a question: How is it a copyright violation when your bringing in someone's quotes to Wikipedia like Sam Adam's article? Wethar555 ( talk) 01:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I made a minor change to my comment after you replied here [3]. Nil Einne ( talk) 14:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello! As for me, my note in 50 (number) deleted by you is so interesting, but maybe it should be in other article. Maybe, in Platonic solids or 100 (number) (just 100 is the sum of their faces and vertices). If this sum were, for example, 86 then it would be not interesting at all. But such a round number in this situation is unexpected and therefore interesting. -- D.M. from Ukraine ( talk) 22:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I understand your comment from the MfD now. The next question comes, can you have two colons in a page title? I think a better place for the header would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Talk header. Ryan Vesey 20:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, AR. I understand. Please note I had posted an inuse banner when s/he edited despite it. See my remark about the "edit war" on X's talkpage. When s/he did it twice I gave up.-- S. Rich ( talk) 06:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Can you tell me what a discrete semiprime is? I understand that a semiprime is a natural number that is the product of two not necessarily distinct primes, but I'm not having any luck with the modifier 'discrete' which shows up on many of the number pages.
Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntropyman ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the recent unhelpful additions to the " Paradoxes" section of the " Perfection" article. Nihil novi ( talk) 04:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Please see " Tunnel diode" on the " Talk:Perfection" page. Maurice Carbonaro is intent on reintroducing his irrelevancies into the " Perfection" article. I think it would be very damaging if he succeeded. Regards, Nihil novi ( talk) 09:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with Alan's history. And at the risk of sounding like X, can you specify what guidance I was infringing on with regard to the categorization issue? Egad, I certainly don't want to engage in behavior which even slighly risks blocking! My approach with X has been one of encouragement and warning. It looks like he's a former GI, as am I -- and I hope my kicks-in-the-pants along with atta-boys will help. I've urged him to edit in areas he knows more about (e.g., military topics), offered suggestions about article improvement, and I've praised him for dropping the out-and-out insults. Your guidance for me, here or via email, is/will be appreciated. – S. Rich ( talk) 18:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
BTW: I searched and searched for info on commenting out the categories via an added colon. Eventually I found WP:SP. In trying to understand it, I developed a suggested revision. [4] Please take a look. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 20:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, who's Emerson? [5]
Hello, Arthur Rubin. You recently participated in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other people's money. You may be interested in a discussion I have initiated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 February 2#Other people's money. Happy editing, Cnilep ( talk) 03:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I think you mistook Little green rosetta [6] for someone else. And using the third person pronoun, when you actually meant "you", made this remark a bit confusing. E.g., X had promised not to do it again. Was this late, late night editing, or early, early pre-coffee editing? Or am I misreading? (In any event, your reminder about the promise is most helpful.) Cheers. – S. Rich ( talk) 14:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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. -- Hugo Spinelli ( talk) 23:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, it was Hugo who added the "SPECIFICO's edits" section heading, not X. And I modified it earlier IAW WP:TPO. As I know you to be most even handed, I'm sure you'll go back and fix the comment. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 02:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, the tax credits are not deducted in determining "taxable income." Taxable income is gross income less deductions. Once taxable income is determined, then a separate computation is performed: the tax rate is applied to taxable income, to determine the preliminary tax figure. The "credits" are then subtracted from the preliminary tax figure to arrive at the tax amount. Famspear ( talk) 03:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
[7]
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 21:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Because, were 2 pi + e to have equaled 5 instead of 9, for instance, its radical would obviously not have been an almost integer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.170.29 ( talk) 14:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Arthur Rubin. Could you please explain this edit summary to me? Xenophrenic ( talk) 17:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for rev deleting the foul comments on my user talk page yesterday. It's much appreciated!
-
Mr
X 17:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I've created a new section on the Koch Industries Talk Page to discuss your disruptive edits there. If you can't or won't do that, I'll be forced to contact Administrators to help resolve this issue. Thanks. Cowicide ( talk) 22:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at
Koch Industries 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. .
Cowicide (
talk) 04:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Seen — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
For explaining the Idaho referendum process in terms of the California election law, which is familiar to me. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 04:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
Where is that quote from? It's niggling at the back of my mind, and google is no help. siafu ( talk) 18:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Killer Chihuahua 18:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, I oppose all of the "proposed topic bans" and consider this is a case of running amok. I did use one (three letter word) in my response to the proposal to ban you from all US political articles which I hereby grant you permission to alter if it offends your sensibilities at this season. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 20:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tea Party movement / US politics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Killer Chihuahua 06:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
the construction of the solution tries to use insertion , there is also a data prescan but algo is not debugged n its work awfully if it is corrected/debugged , only O(n^1,9)... i think it could do better... 93.118.212.93 ( talk) 14:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arthur Rubin, it has been a while since we last made contact. Perhaps you remember that I accused you of vandalism and vice versa and we were at the brink of edit-warring and wiki-lawyering. My apologies for the disputes back then. I believe we are contributing to Wikipedia with the best of our intentions. I am back on Wikipedia, and I hope that I have learnt more about how this community works. As you seemed to be very knowledgable concerning Wikipedia's guidelines and regulations, I'd like to ask you when it is appropriate to send an article through WP:AfD. Do you see yourself rather as a 'deletionist' or 'inclusionist' wikipedian? My previous List of potential candidates for the Nobel Prize in Literature was surely a candidate for WP:AfD. Now, it has been requested by Cnilep that List of important publications in anthropology be moved to Bibliography of anthropology. Your comments on this request are most welcome. Please see Talk:List of important publications in anthropology#Requested move. Anthrophilos ( talk) 23:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
You have said several times that you think I misunderstand policy. Perhaps you missed where I asked you to clarify which policy you think I misunderstand, and why you think I do? Thanks in advance. Killer Chihuahua 22:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua is a she. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC).
Put in your formula the Pauli matrix σ2, and you will get 1 = - 1. This means that your formula is incorrect. Trompedo ( talk) 19:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, I don't know if you saw my comment on the TPM talk page but the Al Hunt Letter from Washington is considered a column and is actually published by the International Herald Tribune. I emailed the managing editor of the NYTs. I also looked into Teaparty.org and couldn't find any notability for them, unlike Tea Party Patriots, etc. That edit relies solely on a primary source anyway. I'd like to edit both things at the same time. One, correct Al Hunt's bit by adding in column and IHT. And delete teaparty.org and put in Tea Party Patriots agenda/mission which is supported by RS. Are these edits that can be done at the same time or would that be two edits that might be considered reverts? Malke 2010 ( talk) 21:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
"No editor may make more than one (1) revert on the same content per twenty-four (24) hour period, excluding blatant vandalism. The three revert-rule still applies to the article at large." It's the "same content." Now,I interpret that to mean, you revert "Joe was born in Kansas," and you keep doing it, that's the same content. But what if it's in the same section? I just don't want an admin to say changing two different things in the same section that makes it the "same content." Malke 2010 ( talk) 22:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, I wrote an article for Jenny Beth Martin but when I tried to move it to the project space I got a message that an article for her had already been deleted. I reviewed the link and it seems it was deleted for copyright vio concerns among other issues. I left a note on the admin's page. My question is, it is a big deal to get this unraveled, or is it something the admin who deleted it can fix? I think she's notable and should have an article. I have RS, etc. Thanks. Malke 2010 ( talk) 16:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I should've read your message a little more thoroughly before calling a talkback, but I think we're pretty much on the same page. — C M B J 02:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I am not suprised or so upset with the result as I am with the manner in which it was done. You are involved, so I am not asking you do anything, just whether something should be done. He seems to be doing this quite often, and has had other concerns. Arzel ( talk) 04:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
While I respect your decision to edit the result, could you please edit the Talk page and the 2nd AFD nomination page to match? I would do so myself, but I am not in a mood to have the discussion I was having with the complainer turn into what could be considered an edit war. Shawn Is Here: Now in colors 04:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I understand you value these sections but most of them are not cited material. I felt no obligation to necessarily transfer them to a new page because they are not verified and cited. If these fictional mentions had been cited, I would have been compelled to preserve the material and move it to a new article. -- ☥NEO ( talk) 05:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)'
Thanks for restoring zero divisors and unity to the first line of integral domain. When adapting the previous editor's changes, I unwittingly transported the zero-divisor bit down with a block, and then deleted it because I thought it was in the first line. What you added in is exactly what I think should be there. Rschwieb ( talk) 13:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 23:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello!
I am rather sure that you are aware of the fact, that your definition of Integral domain is tautologous.
According to the prevailing consensus-algebra, a ring is a ring, but a commutative ring is a commutative ring with identity. - How beautiful!
What do you think of taking the confusing statement out of the lead?
Fylgia Fock ( talk) 17:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Why did you remove the proofs of inference rules of propositional logic??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.237.57.199 ( talk) 10:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, I just noticed that you blocked an anon editor, 99.119.129.34. This anon had made a few edits [10] [11] to pages I watch, which you reverted [12] [13] with the explanation "Blocked editor, not particularly constructive. (TW)." I reverted one of these reversions, and integrated the material with the article. I took a look at this editor's contributions: they consist of a series of about 60 edits, one every 1-15 minutes, in the approximately three hours from 7:07 to 9:55 today. You blocked the editor at 10:01. I looked at a sample of this editor's edits: they are generally minor additions of links [14] [15], adding suggested improvement boxes [16], and minor but cited additions to content [17] [18]. Nothing spectacular, but nothing particularly objectionable, and certainly all in good faith, as far as I can tell. Also as far as I can tell, you didn't contact the anon by leaving anything on his/her talk page.
Now, I'm trying to assume good faith myself: is there something going on here that I'm not aware of? You quoted WP:EVASION on the block, so maybe you think this anon is a sock puppet?
If there's no back story, what I see is someone making moderately constructive and certainly good faith edits for nearly three hours, probably from their home computer or other non-public device, then without warning or engagement getting slapped with a three month block. This person was probably online at the very time you hit him with a block. I can't think of a more off-putting and alienating experience for a new editor.
Is this really where we're at as a community? Blocking good faith anons on sight? I ask you to read this article on the effect of rejecting new editors, and perhaps reconsider your use of Twinkle
Erudy ( talk) 16:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
It is probably worth adding them now. Just removing the top category, which is what will happen if they are not, will create a lot of orphaned categories, and the whole thing will need to go to CfD at some point anyway. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I would like your input on a matter of a possible WP:BLP violation.
A reality TV show presents a known named man robbing a bank.
Thus, the primary source of information is the show itself. The TV director chooses what to film and the TV editor chooses what to keep - they are just as any author of a quotable source by the choices they make.
In a daily wiki synopsis for the show I say that "John Smith the known named man robs banks". I am quoting a reliable source since anyone whom watches the show also saw the same thing. If wikipedia is worried about slander charges - wikipedia says there were authors of the show, TV director and TV editor, whom if they presented some type of doctored footage they are to blame not wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bering_Sea_Gold is the actual possible WP:BLP issue - please see the talk revision history for the discussion of content for the wiki article on " Scott Meisterheim commited a crime on TV".
Thanks in advance for any work done to explain if or if not BLP.-- 68.231.15.56 ( talk) 21:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
FYI, KC is a "she".
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 16:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Please don't remove my picture. I am posting it for two reasons. Two show my photography work, and also because I like the fact he was showing the bumper sticker with the state's slogan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalindgren1 ( talk • contribs) 01:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit - I like your word choice of 'alleged'. (oops - please consider this a 'Barnstar') Jmg38 ( talk) 00:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Institute for Cultural Diplomacy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Cultural Diplomacy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Thanks for your comment at RSN related to the sole source for this article. I've gone ahead and filed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Legal_abuse. Fladrif ( talk) 17:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Just noticed that you blocked a user at the IP 99.112.212.104 and removed what seemed a good faith comment the editor had left on the talk page of David Shambaugh. Just curious what the rationale here was, as it's not immediately evident what the user did to merit a block, and there's nothing on their talk page. Thanks. Homunculus ( duihua) 00:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, it's a while since we communicated (several years ago, actually, on Recovered Memory Therapy). I'm having quite a bit of trouble at the article on the Indian guru Kalki Bhagavan. It is, admittedly, not a very active page and was recently AfD (keep). However, I think there are some serious underlying issues, which I have outlined recently on the article's talk page. One editor in particular seems to be preventing anything being published that varies from the line being pushed by the guru's organisation. I believe it is getting to the stage where intervention from Administrator may be called for. Hoping you can help by taking a look? Or if you're not able to get involved, perhaps you can suggest someone else who might be able to review the article. Cheers, Matt. M Stone ( talk) 11:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
1 edit corrected character representation in table for escaping vertical bar representation and some punctuation
primary necessity is to enumerate all boolean functuions for correspondence with recursive function enumeration to emphasize elementary boolean operation evaluation techniques using nothing but indexing
elaboration of concept edit ie. BA(f,p,q) = f && (2^(2*p +q)) occurred in hindsight
no more edits percieved other than to repost
any reason why complete table of all 2-valued boolean operations and consequent use should not be posted?
if not where should it be posted?
further to this point - the article itself refers to the truth table enumeration of the number of 1's (0's) being odd or even for the various Boolean functions but w/ no such comprehensive table being explicitly available (perhaps a link to the table would be helpful to see this), though the submitted edit provides a link to a table that does not explicitly identify the functions though itemizing the contents
the table submitted enumerates every possible boolean truth value combination on 2 boolean variables - not necessarily important in and of itself but the implications for a Godel enumeration of the same operations and the ease of this for plc implementation on low level cpu design are important
several nuances such as the fact only commutative binary functions have gates etc. become quite lucid
- there does not seem to be such a table in wikipedia elsewhere - such tables are a regularly used resource handout for several courses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 20:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
(
99.249.36.41 (
talk) 20:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)).
BA(f,p,q) = f && (2^(2*p+q)) => f bitwise AND with 2 to the power concatenated pq
extracts the pq'th bit of the binary value of f
why BA is "wrong" since no context was provided as to interpretation - which is the real issue for "wrongness"
editorial resposibility is to assist with the effort to ellucidate and present material — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 21:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
no problem - abstraction is senseless however ... well ... let's execute it and see what happens if a computational environment can "make sense" of the expression
a very common language convention (prevailing here) is that 0 is false and any non-zero value is true Note: while the 0/false convention is ubiquitous, in a few environments true is associated exclusively with -1 and in a few others with 1, while any other pattern of bits either is ignored, generates an error or is undefined
BA(f,p,q) = f && (2^(2*p+q))
the domain is {0,1,2,..,15}x{0,1}x{0,1}
the range is {0,1,2,4,8}
instead of executing the BA function the primitive definition will be used directly for the calculation
(the actual exercise on {0,1,2,..,15}x{true,false}x{true,false} also includes the requirement to print appropriately the numeric function converted to its boolean logic equivalent as an infix operator between the operands, a leading unary operator or a nullary constant - not done here)
for f in {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15} for p in {0,1} for q in {0,1} print f && (2^(2*p+q))
and the output is
0000100002001200004010400240124000081008020812080048104802481248
or for clarity spaces have been manually inserted
0000 1000 0200 1200 0040 1040 0240 1240 0008 1008 0208 1208 0048 1048 0248 1248
the complete boolean algebra logic table can therefore be calculated! and printed (transposed) as:
print " p F F T T" + nl print " q F T F T" for f in {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15} begin print nl+["False","NOR","~(q=>p)","~p","~(p=>q)", "well","you","get","the","idea","","","p","q=>p","OR","true"][f] +"\t" for p in {0,1} for q in {0,1} print f && (2^(2*p+q)) ? " T" : " F" end
and the output is:
p F F T T q F T F T False F F F F NOR T F F F ~(q=>p) F T F F ~p T T F F ~(p=>q) F F T F T F T F well F T T F you T T T F get F F F T the T F F T idea F T F T T T F T p F F T T q=>p T F T T OR F T T T true T T T T
Same thing in the vernacular of a more colloquial paradigm:
javascript: x = " p F F T T\n"; x+= " q F T F T" ; for (f=0;f<16;f++) { x += "\n"+["False","NOR ","~(q=>p)","~p ","~(p=>q)"," ", "well","you ","get ","the ","idea"," ","p ","q=>p","OR ","true"][f] +"\t"; for (p in [false,true]) /* Caveat! this is a js gotcha' */ for (q in [true,false]) /* told ya so */ x += (f & [1,2,4,8][2*p + 1*q]) ? " T" : " F" /* the ^ is XOR in js */ } alert(x); ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ or more sensibly javascript: x = " p F F T T\n"; x+= " q F T F T" ; for (f=0;f<16;f++) { x += "\n"+["False","NOR ","~(q=>p)","~p ","~(p=>q)"," ", "well","you ","get ","the ","idea"," ","p ","q=>p","OR ","true"][f] +"\t"; for (p=0;p<2;p++) for (q=0;q<2;q++) x += (f >> (2*p + q)) % 2 ? " T" : " F" /* the ^ is XOR in js */ } alert(x);
If there is a less senseless programming paradigm name your poison:
EUCLID, LUCID, LOGO, LISP, BASIC, PL/I, FORTRAN, COBOL, SNOBOL, JAVA, HYPO, JOSS, C & derivatives, FORTH, ERLANG, PERL, PYTHON, APL, SIMULA, ALGOL, BLISS, POP-10, PROLOG, GPSS, ADA, PASCAL, ...
The table per se is not important BUT the BA function & Boolean Algebra isomorphism is. A Godel enumeration is effectively done using the BA function over a 2 valued Boolean Algebra allowing for its succinct hardware implementation. It is a standard exercise to prove the isomorphism and that the BA function IS a Boolean Algebra. Moreover, when designing a rudimentary machine with the primitive recursive functions, and the selector function in particular, necessitating rapid prototype development - the BA function can expedite this profoundly. Freshmen do the coding above and later, implement the PLA hardware. Matriculating sophmores are expected to understand the theory behind it all.
The enumeration of all 2 valued Boolean Algebra functions is NOT an idle exercise and, in the context of recursive function theory, this is very relevent when doing a hardware implentation of that very Algebra when constructing an automaton.
Anyhow, if sensing the expression f && (2^(2*p+q)) is a problem then ... ;)
( 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 06:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 03:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
( 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 06:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)).
Ah ... there's the rub! is <math> and f && (2^(2*p+q)) is not! (directly) - there are some SAM systems around but not sure if any of them interprete as a bit wise conjunction on the binary expansions - for many reasons it is highly unlikely!
It is possible to coerce ... gotta' go for lunch! ... will provide a quick synopsis of how Boolean Algebra, RFT, Automata Theory, Formal Languages, ..., neatly bunble (oops a Freudian! bumble or bundle!) machine abstract modeling and silicon rendering
head is swimming with where to start
The lamda calculus and recursive conceptualization has to do with how any formal system is used to describe itself (realizing of course the Halting problem, Gödel incompleteness, etc. [ aside - which is why all diagnostic programs are failures! - several times profoundly failing machines run such diagnostics that incorrectly report no problem! - a badly skewed 5¼ inch disk comes to mind and the hardware techs were not amused, not by the failure of the diagnostics but by the {my} rhetorical observation of the diagnostics failure! - gotta learn how to halt soft tissue grey matter computation {reprogram it? been told I am or have the halting problem!} or at least halt the output!] )
This is the essence of how an abstraction such as the Boolean Algebra can be used to construct a computer. On a very pragmatic level this recursive approach is not necessary. On a very esoteric level the succesive refinement of computational architecture is currently a recursive symbiotic process of both silicon based and soft tissue based computation (this is how psychology and cognitive processing also becomes part of the milieu ergo the Freudian slip above - unfortunately, was not going to go here too!).
First the coercion (excuse my informalities - been a while since I've dressed up this formally - good thing this is a long weekend! hopefully this will not make it too long for yourself! - PS. as a student of law is not the output of i=0; i++ in contravention of software copyright? who or what gets sued when a legitimate program is -eventually- counterfeited? - sorry couldn't resist - right up there with ogooglebar! and RepRap):
The little game to be played below will do bit extraction with arithmetic only - and standard keyboard symbols which leaves out ceiling and floor operators (symbols too hard to type or cut & paste - will regenerate from 1st princples - can't find notes - I am really mixing my metaphors - will qualify or not)
informally ... x(n-3)x(n-2)x(n-1)xn selector function on pq ((S(n,f3,f2,f1,f0)( f3 x (n-2)x(n-1)xn /( 1x 2x 3) + f2 x(n-3) x(n-1)xn /(-1x 1x 2) + f1 x(n-3)x(n-2) xn /(-2x-1x 1) + f0 x(n-3)x(n-2)x(n-1) /(-3x-2x-1) ))(2*p+q))(f3,f2,f1,f0) ffo: find first one po2: power of 2 (though a crowd is better) aside 15 - n + 1 will if xor'd
formalities ... Generalized Selector aka Interpolating Polynomial
GS(n,k,f0,f1,f2,...,fk) = ∑i=0 to k fi ∏j=0 to k,j≠i (n-j)/(i-j)
BA: {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15}x{0,1}x{0,1} => {0,1} BA(f,p,q) = G(f,2p + q) G(f,r)=GS(f,15,GS(r,3,0,0,0,0),GS(r,3,0,0,0,1),GS(r,3,0,0,1,0),GS(r,3,0,0,1,1), GS(r,3,0,1,0,0),GS(r,3,0,1,0,1),GS(r,3,0,1,1,0),GS(r,3,0,1,1,1), GS(r,3,1,0,0,0),GS(r,3,1,0,0,1),GS(r,3,1,0,1,0),GS(r,3,1,0,1,1), GS(r,3,1,1,0,0),GS(r,3,1,1,0,1),GS(r,3,1,1,1,0),GS(r,3,1,1,1,1)) (in spite of the US gun control problem GS(r is not gun shot residue - yet) - the BA function is a Boolean Algebra provided composition is restricted to the p & q arguments - ie. BA(BA(3,0,1),0,1) is verboten (temporarily for now) but BA(6,BA(3,0,1),BA(8,1,1)) is kosher - the actual definition of BA is irrelevent but bit-bashing is unfortunately not succintly defined using "pure" math w/o resorting to the use of a programming language - bit extraction with ceiling, floor and modulus is possible except that it is not clear if modulus is acceptable as a remainder function independently from its conventional meaning and use for congruency but this is "cooler": BA: {false,^,v,|,~,....,true}x{true,false}x{true,false} => {true,false} - this last implies parametric retrieval of the boolean operators as generated functions themselves - this is a further development to come where the f's themselves are generated as the result of functional computation ie. executing a program - at the moment they can only be used as constant nullary functions - so a system will be constructed that generates components of the system - the value of a recursive function theoretic approach is that it allows for a homogenous model to not only construct a machine but also describe it's functioning when the f parameter will be changed and loaded with a new f as the computation of a program proceeds - to be sure the f cannot change in the designed machine's hardware (well ... there are BIOS viruses and some programs could actually permanently ruin hardware) - the BA function is shy of the mark yet - the model of the BA function now has an f that is malleable and non-distinct from data and the p and q can be perceived as functions - the use of recursive function theory here is exceptionally elementary but useful - the target is BAmachine(program) where if program=BAmachine then BAmachine(BAmachine) = BAmachine
(aside how in the h... did I get here??? - RepRap! - self-replicating automata - bootstrapping & making my own - to construct solid geometry, regular polyhedra, pseudo's and quasi's also - throwback to childhood pending desires and the 59 Coxeter icosahedrons - design software openSCAD - ... augmented it with composite Boolean functions {why? some reason maybe just serendipity} - whimsically wiki'd Boolean logic got algebra - saw reference to use in computer construction but no specifics or ref's to Karnaugh - "List of Boolean algebra topics" does not provide info - the characterizing of a BA via RFT to do this construction seems to be missing ... will likely need to rebuild controller firmware but not at as low a level as the BA but ... )
gist of argument: low level hardware's switching theory is intimately connected to Boolean operations - recursive functions, automata, etc. provide a good high level abstraction for machine design - computability theory has a foot in both camps - the tools will create a machine model that needs to, among other things, model itself and be Turing complete (the base system need not be Gödel complete - the 6809 chip had an HCF undocumented op which would trap the cpu in a Halt & Catch Fire unresolved address calculation so the instruction would never terminate necessitating a power down if one wanted it to do something else more useful)
Boolean Algebra provides the ideal paradigm for Computability studies and Satisfiability but not so convenient for exposition of recursive functions.
(Sorry the modus operandi will give a skelton approach with a bit of fleshing out with the meat and perhaps some potatoes thrown in before getting to the real muscle of this.)
personally this is quite a refreshing and edifying experience forcing myself to reconstruct long lost treatises, as it's been a decade (or 3) since dealing with these primitives
TBC - same channel not necessarily same time
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 16:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
will do this 1st - will forget again otherwise - pre-emptive grey matter conditioned programming ( 216.191.39.102 ( talk) 01:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)).
ditto 1st ( 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 05:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)).
The problem with F(x,y)=x(y,y) is we have no idea whether F will be invoked as F(F,F). I submit that F(x,y)=x(y,y) is a recursive function even if it's invocation is unknown!
ditto ditto ( 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 08:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)).
Appears to be the model for Talk:Fascism#Lead_post-RFC, alas. Is it proper for editors to snark about an IP as though he were an editor they proudly drove away? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 03:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
For fixing substandard minus signs in WP:MOSMATH. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 10:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I recently put a little note here but it got trimmed [ [19]]. Hoping it was a mistake? M Stone ( talk) 20:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
1 edit corrected character representation in table for escaping vertical bar representation and some punctuation
primary necessity is to enumerate all boolean functuions to correspond with recursive function enumeration to emphasize elementary boolean operation evaluation techniques using nothing but indexing
elaboration of concept edit ie. BA(f,p,q) = f && (2^(2*p +q)) occurred in hindsight
no more edits percieved other than to repost
any reason why complete table of all 2-valued boolean operations and consequent USE should not be posted?
if not where should it be posted?
further to this point - the article itself refers to the truth table enumeration of the number of 1's (0's) being odd or even for the various Boolean functions but w/ no such comprehensive table being explicitly available (perhaps a link to the table would be helpful to see this), though the submitted edit provides a link to a table that does not explicitly identify the functions though itemizing the contents
the submitted table enumerates every possible boolean truth value combination on 2 boolean variables - not necessarily important in and of itself but the implications for a Godel enumeration of the same operations and the ease of this for plc implementation on low level cpu design are important
several nuances such as the fact only commutative binary functions have gates etc. become quite lucid
- there does not seem to be such an explicit, succint table in wikipedia - such tables are used regularly (there are several variations thoughout wiki's pages BUT none emphaze the isomorphism of the true false bit battern with the enueration of the boolean operators using that same bit pattern)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 20:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
(
99.249.36.41 (
talk) 20:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)).
BA(f,p,q) = f && (2^(2*p+q)) => f bitwise AND with 2 to the power concatenated pq
extracts the pq'th bit of the binary value of f
why BA is "wrong" since no context was provided as to interpretation - which is the real issue for "wrongness"
is editorial resposibility to assist with the effort to ellucidate and present material?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 21:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
no problem - abstraction is senseless however ... well ... let's execute it and see what happens if a computational environment can "make sense" of the expression
a very common language convention (prevailing here) is that 0 is false and any non-zero value is true Note: while the 0/false convention is ubiquitous, in a few environments true is associated exclusively with -1 and in a few others with 1, while any other pattern of bits either is ignored, generates an error or is undefined
BA(f,p,q) = f && (2^(2*p+q))
the domain is {0,1,2,..,15}x{0,1}x{0,1}
the range is {0,1,2,4,8}
instead of executing the BA function the primitive definition will be used directly for the calculation
(the actual exercise on {0,1,2,..,15}x{true,false}x{true,false} also includes the requirement to print appropriately the numeric function converted to its boolean logic equivalent as an infix operator between the operands, a leading unary operator or a nullary constant - not done here)
for f in {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15} for p in {0,1} for q in {0,1} print f && (2^(2*p+q))
and the output is
0000100002001200004010400240124000081008020812080048104802481248
or for clarity spaces have been manually inserted
0000 1000 0200 1200 0040 1040 0240 1240 0008 1008 0208 1208 0048 1048 0248 1248
the complete boolean algebra logic table can therefore be calculated! and printed (transposed) as:
print " p F F T T" + nl print " q F T F T" for f in {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15} begin print nl+["False","NOR","~(q=>p)","~p","~(p=>q)", "well","you","get","the","idea","","","p","q=>p","OR","true"][f] +"\t" for p in {0,1} for q in {0,1} print f && (2^(2*p+q)) ? " T" : " F" end
and the output is:
p F F T T q F T F T False F F F F NOR T F F F ~(q=>p) F T F F ~p T T F F ~(p=>q) F F T F T F T F well F T T F you T T T F get F F F T the T F F T idea F T F T T T F T p F F T T q=>p T F T T OR F T T T true T T T T
Same thing in the vernacular of a more colloquial paradigm:
javascript: x = " p F F T T\n"; x+= " q F T F T" ; for (f=0;f<16;f++) { x += "\n"+["False","NOR ","~(q=>p)","~p ","~(p=>q)"," ", "well","you ","get ","the ","idea"," ","p ","q=>p","OR ","true"][f] +"\t"; for (p in [false,true]) /* Caveat! this is a js gotcha' */ for (q in [true,false]) /* told ya so */ x += (f & [1,2,4,8][2*p + 1*q]) ? " T" : " F" /* the ^ is XOR in js */ } alert(x); ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ or more sensibly javascript: x = " p F F T T\n"; x+= " q F T F T" ; for (f=0;f<16;f++) { x += "\n"+["False","NOR ","~(q=>p)","~p ","~(p=>q)"," ", "well","you ","get ","the ","idea"," ","p ","q=>p","OR ","true"][f] +"\t"; for (p=0;p<2;p++) for (q=0;q<2;q++) x += (f >> (2*p + q)) % 2 ? " T" : " F" /* the ^ is XOR in js */ } alert(x);
If there is a less senseless programming paradigm name your poison:
EUCLID, LUCID, LOGO, LISP, BASIC, PL/I, FORTRAN, COBOL, SNOBOL, JAVA, HYPO, JOSS, C & derivatives, FORTH, ERLANG, PERL, PYTHON, APL, SIMULA, ALGOL, BLISS, POP-10, PROLOG, GPSS, ADA, PASCAL, ...
The table per se is not important BUT the BA function & Boolean Algebra isomorphism is. A Godel enumeration is effectively done using the BA function over a 2 valued Boolean Algebra allowing for its succinct hardware implementation. It is a standard exercise to prove the isomorphism and that the BA function IS a Boolean Algebra. Moreover, when designing a rudimentary machine with the primitive recursive functions, and the selector function in particular, necessitating rapid prototype development - the BA function enumeration concept can expedite this profoundly.
The enumeration of all 2 valued Boolean Algebra functions is NOT an idle exercise and, in the context of recursive function theory, this is very relevant when doing a hardware implimentation of that very Algebra when constructing an automaton.
Anyhow, if sensing the expression f && (2^(2*p+q)) is a problem then ... ;)
( 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 06:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 03:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
( 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 06:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)).
Ah ... there's the rub! is <math> and f && (2^(2*p+q)) is not! (directly) - there are some SAM systems around but not sure if any of them interprete as a bit wise conjunction on the binary expansions - for many reasons it is highly unlikely!
It is possible to coerce ... gotta' go for lunch! ... will provide a quick synopsis of how Boolean Algebra, RFT, Automata Theory, Formal Languages, ..., neatly bunbled (oops a Freudian! bumbled or bundled!) machine abstract modeling and silicon rendering
head is swimming with where to start
The lamda calculus and recursive conceptualization has to do with how any formal system is used to describe itself (realizing of course the Halting problem, Gödel incompleteness, etc. [ aside - which is why all diagnostic programs are failures! - several times profoundly failing machines run such diagnostics that incorrectly report no problem! - a badly skewed 5¼ inch disk comes to mind and the hardware techs were not amused, not by the failure of the diagnostics but by the {my} rhetorical observation of the diagnostics failure! - gotta learn how to halt soft tissue grey matter computation {reprogram it? been told I am or have the halting problem!} or at least halt the output!] )
This is the essence of how an abstraction such as the Boolean Algebra can be used to construct a computer. On a very pragmatic level this recursive approach is not necessary. On a very esoteric level the succesive refinement of computational architecture is currently a recursive symbiotic process of both silicon based and soft tissue based computation (this is how psychology and cognitive processing also becomes part of the milieu ergo the Freudian slip above - unfortunately, was not going to go here too!).
First the coercion (excuse my informalities - been a while since I've dressed up this formally - good thing this is a long weekend! hopefully this will not make it too long for yourself! - PS. as a student of law is not the output of i=0; i++ in contravention of software copyright? who or what gets sued when a legitimate program is -eventually- counterfeited? - sorry couldn't resist - right up there with ogooglebar! and RepRap):
The little game to be played below will do bit extraction with arithmetic only - and standard keyboard symbols which leaves out ceiling and floor operators (symbols too hard to type or cut & paste - will regenerate from 1st princples - can't find notes - I am really mixing my metaphors - will qualify or not)
informally ... x(n-3)x(n-2)x(n-1)xn selector function on pq ((S(n,f3,f2,f1,f0)( f3 x (n-2)x(n-1)xn /( 1x 2x 3) + f2 x(n-3) x(n-1)xn /(-1x 1x 2) + f1 x(n-3)x(n-2) xn /(-2x-1x 1) + f0 x(n-3)x(n-2)x(n-1) /(-3x-2x-1) ))(2*p+q))(f3,f2,f1,f0) ffo: find first one po2: power of 2 (though a crowd is better) aside 31 - n + 1 will if xor'd
formalities ... Generalized Selector aka Interpolating Polynomial
GS(n,k,f0,f1,f2,...,fk) = ∑i=0 to k fi ∏j=0 to k,j≠i (n-j)/(i-j)
BA: {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15}x{0,1}x{0,1} => {0,1} BA(f,p,q) = G(f,2p + q) G(f,r)=GS(f,15,GS(r,3,0,0,0,0),GS(r,3,0,0,0,1),GS(r,3,0,0,1,0),GS(r,3,0,0,1,1), GS(r,3,0,1,0,0),GS(r,3,0,1,0,1),GS(r,3,0,1,1,0),GS(r,3,0,1,1,1), GS(r,3,1,0,0,0),GS(r,3,1,0,0,1),GS(r,3,1,0,1,0),GS(r,3,1,0,1,1), GS(r,3,1,1,0,0),GS(r,3,1,1,0,1),GS(r,3,1,1,1,0),GS(r,3,1,1,1,1)) (in spite of the US gun control problem GS(r is not gun shot residue - yet) - the BA function is a Boolean Algebra provided composition is restricted to the p & q arguments - ie. BA(BA(3,0,1),0,1) is verboten (temporarily for now) but BA(6,BA(3,0,1),BA(8,1,1)) is kosher - the actual definition of BA is irrelevent but bit-bashing is unfortunately not succintly defined using "pure" math w/o resorting to the use of a programming language - bit extraction with ceiling, floor and modulus is possible except that it is not clear if modulus is acceptable as a remainder function independently from its conventional meaning and use for congruency but this is "cooler": BA: {false,^,v,|,~,....,true}x{true,false}x{true,false} => {true,false} - this last implies parametric retrieval of the boolean operators as generated functions themselves - this is a further development to come where the f's themselves are generated as the result of functional computation ie. executing a program - at the moment they can only be used as constant nullary functions - so a system will be constructed that generates components of the system - the value of a recursive function theoretic approach is that it allows for a homogenous model to not only construct a machine but also describe it's functioning when the f parameter will be changed and loaded with a new f as the computation of a program proceeds - to be sure the f cannot change in the designed machine's hardware (well ... there are BIOS viruses and some programs could actually permanently ruin hardware) - the BA function is shy of the mark yet - the model of the BA function now has an f that is malleable and non-distinct from data and the p and q can be perceived as functions - the use of recursive function theory here is exceptionally elementary but useful - the target is BAmachine(program) where if program=BAmachine then BAmachine(BAmachine) = BAmachine
(aside how in the h... did I get here??? - RepRap! - self-replicating automata - bootstrapping & making my own - to construct solid geometry, regular polyhedra, pseudo's and quasi's also - throwback to childhood pending desires and the 59 Coxeter icosahedrons - design software openSCAD - ... augmented it with composite Boolean functions {why? some reason maybe just serendipity} - whimsically wiki'd Boolean logic got algebra - saw reference to use in computer construction but no specifics or ref's to Karnaugh - "List of Boolean algebra topics" does not provide info - the characterizing of a BA via RFT to do this construction seems to be missing ... will likely need to rebuild controller firmware but not at as low a level as the BA but ... )
gist of argument: low level hardware's switching theory is intimately connected to Boolean operations - recursive functions, automata, etc. provide a good high level abstraction for machine design - computability theory has a foot in both camps - the tools will create a machine model that needs to, among other things, model itself and be Turing complete (the base system need not be Gödel complete - the 6809 chip had an HCF undocumented op which would trap the cpu in a Halt & Catch Fire unresolved address calculation so the instruction would never terminate necessitating a power down if one wanted it to do something else more useful)
Boolean Algebra provides the ideal paradigm for Computability studies and Satisfiability but not so convenient for exposition of recursive functions.
(Sorry the modus operandi will give a skelton approach with a bit of fleshing out with the meat and perhaps some potatoes thrown in before getting to the real muscle of this.)
personally this is quite a refreshing and edifying experience forcing myself to reconstruct long ago practise and theory, as it's been a decade (or 3) since dealing with these primitives
TBC - same channel not necessarily same time
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 16:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
will do this 1st - will forget again otherwise - pre-emptive grey matter conditioned programming ( 216.191.39.102 ( talk) 01:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)).
ditto 1st ( 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 05:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)).
The problem with F(x,y)=x(y,y) is we have no idea whether F will be invoked as F(F,F). I submit that F(x,y)=x(y,y) is a recursive function even if it's invocation is unknown!
Rexamining BA(f,p,q) in this context the target is something like BAx?(BAx?,...) there is a bit (well more like a KB or maybe a GB) to go yet.
(out of curiosity searching wikipedia for info on CPU chip design and construction - early hit on "machine architecture" & "computer architecture" was to ARM architecture which is the chip for the controller mentioned above for firmware programming - now there's a blast from the past Altair 8000, Z80, Acorn BBC, ... did not know A in ARM was for Acorn)
searching wiki pages to see if this topic of machine abstraction to concrete construction is explicitly documented - no luck yet (there are of course many models that will suffice)
- Turing machines etc. ATM, DTM, NDTM, ... - Turing_tarpit - Stack_machine - Pushdown_automaton th original PDA! & its non-deterministic counterpart - Register_machine - Context-free_grammar - [[]] - Finite_automaton - Automata-based_programming - Abstract_state_machines <= this may be "closest" to the "target" - notes predate circa references by a decade (mid 70's) and taught the transformation into hardware via Boolean Algebra - UML_state_machine#UML_extensions_to_the_traditional_FSM_formalism <= warm too - Systolic array (trellis automata) - Sequential_logic - Combinational_logic - ASIC & ASIP - FPGA & FPGA#FPGA_design_and_programming - RISC - Complex instruction set computing - One_instruction_set_computer - Zero_instruction_set_computer - Programmable Logic Array - Formal_semantics_of_programming_languages but applied to hardware! via Denotational_semantics & Operational_semantics - Algebraic_semantics_(computer_science) <= ??? am curious about this - CPU Sim - Millicode - Microcode - JHDL - P-code_machine - Java virtual machine - Tiny_Internet_Interface Tini! - 1-bit_architecture - [[]] - [[]] - [[]]
ditto ditto ( 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 08:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)).
TBC, same channel, ... signature ditto recursed
( 209.112.38.254 ( talk) 17:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)).
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is " 85 (number)". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 23:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, could you please look at the block of the above user and make sure I did the right thing? Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 02:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not trying to start an argument, and I recognize your valued contributions to WP (which are more knowledgeable than mine), but my edits to Algebraic number are no different than many other edits I and other editors have made to make inline mathematical equations and the like within articles more readable. Perhaps it's a matter of taste on my part, but I find it more difficult and distracting to read inline LaTEX text than its HTML equivalent. Note that I'm not questioning the misuse of {{frac}} in math articles, as I was not aware of the policy until now. I am, however, at a loss to understand why my particular changes are not acceptable, whereas the same type of changes made on many other pages by many other editors are. — Loadmaster ( talk) 18:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Howdy. You are mentioned at Wikipedia:ANI#Interim_remedy_requested.-- Rockfang ( talk) 00:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Please take a look at Shepherd Smith [20] and its talk page [21],
WP:BLP/N about the same biography [22], [23] etc. ,
and the edit history of Outing [24]
and Outrage (2009 film) [25] (in each case multiple reversions to include material removed as being contrary to WP:BLP and under discussion at WP:BLP/N currently, and where the clear consensus is "Heck No!") as I think some very major violations of WP:BLP are being made and deliberately iterated (that is, to have Wikipedia in multiple articles state that Shepard Smith has been outed as gay.
For some idiotic reason I had thought that using allegations abut a living person's sexuality requires very strong sourcing but apparently if a filmmaker says "Y is gay" than it is proper for Wikipedia to so state as an allegation in their biography? Note: there is no claim by anyone that this is a "notable aspect" of Shepard Smith. Many thanks. Collect ( talk) 21:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Would you be interested to help me on this project? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map
I am trying to duplicate this economic report for all 196 countries. Would you be willing to contribute by duplicating this model for another country?
United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States
China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/sandbox
Mcnabber091 ( talk) 05:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
May I ask why my edits were reverted on the Virtual Reality entry? Mark Koltko-Rivera ( talk) 10:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
MKR: Could you tell me more about what you would consider evidence that this source is reliable? The term "reliable" can be taken different ways. Mark Koltko-Rivera ( talk) 04:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, Arthur Rubin! If we have not met, I'm AutomaticStrikeout. I've come here to ask you to take part in the survey at User:AutomaticStrikeout/Are admins interested in a RfB?. I am trying to gauge the general level of interest that administrators have in running for cratship, as well as pinpoint the factors that affect that interest level. Your input will be appreciated. Happy editing, AutomaticStrikeout ( T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/LA/SDCC1. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 17:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
i think ull have to forgive my slang: bcz in my country there some policy abt the teachs that the English is mostly for the VIPs (at least it was in the 80s when i was i highschool, im not such good plain english speaker... ok u help me with some compression data formula. please consider the followings here
we got a bin string: first well make it base three string , it will have abt 3/5*N , n number of bits of given bin string digits... in tipical worst case we got equal probabilities 4 each digit: we mark aiding 3/5 bits one (the most frequent ) digit... the rest of the string which is more like a 2/5 bits binary string will convert it again to base 3 n repeat the rutine untill we'll get a totally lenght of N bits but with the mention that probability of "1" binary digit is 2/3 (or 1/3) making possible, aiding ur formula, a 92% data compression.... Respect, Florin , Romania 93.118.212.93 ( talk) 08:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
thank You 4 answering to me, Sir, what i meant is some repeated routine (on practically different datas) and only one compression of all 1:2 probability of digits resulted string to b compressed. im not sure its working, anyway :) 93.118.212.93 ( talk) 07:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you really advocate exclusion of the Boston marathon bombings from the 2013 timeline? Bearian ( talk) 15:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I closed the ANI thread I opened about Alan but I would like to thank you for that great idea. Did you want to inquire more about that or would you like me too? It would probably be better and stand a chance of success coming from you. No one really cares what I have to say. Kumioko ( talk) 01:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Can you please undelete this. Clearly not in a million years a speedy delete. It is a high class London opticians, opticians to HM The Queen and has a Royal Warrant. I suspect that the nomination was made in bad faith as well. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 18:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I created a new section at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter about my questions, as per your suggessions, since mine was more of general discussion.
Other than very few articles and some technical querries,usually I do not participate in english wikipedia discussions.So I had no clue about discussion about restrictions on user Alan.
By the way,(I know we can not engineer every aspect of human life) , but still,if you keep problem of technical feasibility aside for a while and think, about "technological solution for sociological issue" , are you sure,criticizing technological solutions altogether, is not a logical fallacy and self contradictory; Whether blocking a user is not "technological solution for sociological issue" ? Is not maximum portion in concept and usage of abuse filter/edit filter in itself a "technological solution for sociological issue" ?
I am interested in discussing with you,and have your openion on some technical solutions and enhancement bugs ,if you do not mind .
Mean while any support in upgrading the article Legal awareness is also welcome.
Thanks and warm regards
Mahitgar ( talk) 16:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, I respectfully request that you change your "vote" in the survey. After reading your remarks, I think perhaps I didn't make my proposal clear. Per WP:WEIGHT, "TPm is anti-immigration" is a minority opinion. Putting it in the "agenda" section at the start of the article, particularly when using Wikipedia's voice to state it as a fact, gives it far too much weight. This pretends that it's the majority opinion.
In the course of the discussion, I've been proposing that it should be mentioned nearer the end of the article, in the section discussing allegations of racism. I would also carefully attribute this claim to the handful of persons who are making it, such as Matt Barreto, rather than using Wikipedia's voice to state it as a fact. I think this is also consistent with what you're saying, although from your "vote" you seem to want to keep it right where it was in the "agenda" section, stating it as a fact. If you agree that it should be moved farther down in the article, under the conditions I've described, please change your vote to Oppose, indicating that you oppose use of the term "anti-immigration" in the "agenda" section. Thank you. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 20:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, I see several problems with what you have stated above. I'll be frank and simply tell you straight away that I don't believe for a moment that you are simply mistaken or misunderstanding at this point. You have exhausted what little remaining good faith I maintained in you, and now I'm fairly certain that you are willfully misrepresenting the situation, and intentionally distorting the truth. Others may not readily see it, so I'll provide the following clarifications:
That would be a reasonable assumption under any other circumstance than this one. Had you been following the beginning of that discussion, however, you would have noticed that Malke had asked, " Who is doing this? Where's the RS that shows rallies, and protests, and marches against illegal immigration by the 'tea party.'" That's right, Arthur, while everyone else on the page was debating whether or not the TP movement was anti-immigration, Malke was arguing that the TP movement wasn't anti-ILLEGAL-immigration. Surely Malke must have "had a thinko" (new term for me, forgive me if I'm not using it right) and really meant to say "anti-immigration", right? No. She was demanding that I source the fact that TPers protest against illegal immigration. Even Arzel expressed confusion over Malke's stance, until I assured him she really did ask me for sources showing protests against "illegal" immigration. Arzel's response. Even North8000 was confused over Malke's use of the "anti-illegal-immigration" phrase, saying, " The above seems to keep jumping off on tangents. People keep discussing TPM actions against illegal immigration...". I set him straight, saying, "No, North, you heard her right. It's not a tangent, and there's been no false inference; it's a completely separate argument going on here." Malke confirmed that she was indeed intentionally talking about illegal immigration, not anti-immigration, saying, " I'm not saying you can't mention anti-illegal immigration. I'm challenging the RS that you presented earlier. And I've made very clear what problems I saw with each one of those sources." So Arthur, when everyone was arguing over the "anti-immigration" phrase, Malke was arguing over "anti-ILLEGAL-immigration", and insisting that I provide better sources to prove that TPers protested, marched and rallied against it. It was confusing to me, and to Arzel, and to North8000 that she was arguing over one term rather than the other, but I learned not to question her. When she later in that same discussion thread said "anti-immigration" when she really meant "anti-illegal-immigration", you claim it should have been "obvious to anyone reading" what she meant? Oh, hell no -- don't even try to pull that, Arthur. Apparently Malke talks about what she talks about, and assuming it's "obvious to all" when she makes a mistatement, well, nothing could be further from the truth.
No, Arthur. No one reverted her correction. I've checked every singe edit, twice. That's more bullshit, and I'm fairly certain you knew it was bullshit when you spouted it. I find that's pretty much true of most of the comments you make that are not accompanied by diffs. But your plan worked, Malke took your bait and chimed in with "I didn't know Xenophrenic had reverted my comment, if so, I'll add that in, too." Well done.
More bullshit. Have you even looked at the exchange? Oh wait ... that's right, you've been too busy to bother to look at that upon which you comment. I knew Malke had simply made a mistake, or a "thinko" as you say, and I even stated so: "You've mixed the terms up again." But she denied getting the terms mixed up, saying, " No I haven't mixed up anything. I meant to say anti-illegal immigration." And sure enough, there were her words: "anti-illegal-immigration" ... so I must have misread them the first time, I figured. But then I checked her edit. She had slipped in the word "illegal", without updating the time stamp, without noting that she had edited a comment to which I had already replied, and she denied she had made a mixup.
More bullshit. Since you don't have the time to actually read the discussions, and therefore have no real clue about my positions regarding anti-immigration and anti-illegal-immigration, allow me to quote from some of my own statements from the Talk page:
I know very well the difference between "anti-illegal-immigration" and "anti-immigration", and your assertion to the contrary is designed to intentionally mislead. I have never said they are the same. As for the latter being "misleading", where have I commented on that at all? (oh yeah, you don't do diffs, so I guess it will remain an eternal mystery.) You are the only person to assert that it is misleading. Anything is open for discussion, Arthur, and for you to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
And yet you still are unable to provide diffs. That is very telling. You haven't indicated tendentious editing in your comment above. I pointed out that Malke had mixed up her terminology, and she publicly denied it, but knowing that she actually had, she corrected her mixup by editing an old comment without indicating her change. I civilly asked her to refrain from doing that, and cited the relevant policy. That's not tendentious editing, Arthur, that's routine discourse between editors. I've expressed disagreement with certain opinions, and you misrepresent that as failing to "acknowledge" or "recognize" something -- again without evidence. That's not tendentious editing, Arthur, that's you manufacturing baseless personal attacks upon an editor with whom you disagree, rather than discussing and working through your disagreements.
What does it say about you and your motivations when you have to actually "search" for evidence of tendentious editing, or ask other editors like North hoping that maybe they can provide you with something to manufacture a case against someone? Think about it. When KillerChihuahua fell ill and was hospitalized, I started compiling evidence for ArbCom in case she wasn't able to handle the matter, but fortunately she was back online very quickly. Yet, in that short time, I was able to compile 11.5 typed pages of diffs of egregeous behavior -- serious stuff warranting sanctions, not hand-wavey vague accusations that don't amount to much -- without even trying. I didn't have to struggle to find something, anything, to try to build a case ... it all jumped out at me, and I could barely type it up fast enough. There's a clue there. But I'm a solutions guy, not a sanctions guy, which is why I haven't commented at the ArbCom case, and declined to participate while its focus was on sanctioning editors rather than implementing a plan for article improvement. It's why I don't rush to the boards when I see editors flagrantly breaking rules (like Arzel reverting the word "generally" out of the article twice [30] [31] in 13 hours - a slam dunk block). Unfortunately, since I see you have left your unsubstantiated personal attack on the article Talk page, I'm forced to take this to an administrator's board. Xenophrenic ( talk) 10:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
(Copying comments and responses from above for readability. --Xenophrenic)
ok lets say i accept this (thou i do not since all the editors were just fine till MC made this sudden change) then MC should pull one name at a time backwards (not wholesale changes deemed only by him) so we other editors can vote on each incremental removal - to remove 6 names or even 2 at a time is capricious and adds the complexity of a network solution set needing to be arrived at which is not likely to make any editor happy-- 68.231.15.56 ( talk) 20:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
74.50.143.10 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) i have noticed that this editor is a vandal-- 68.231.15.56 ( talk) 20:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
What other logical relations?
These don't apply to a declaration of "all logical relationships", when talking about Venn Diagrams.
http://www-01.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsALogicalRelation.htm
"A logical relation is an interpropositional relation in which a proposition is related to another, in reasoning, as
a premise to a conclusion, or an antecedent to a consequent."
There are very many different types of logical relationships, and an unqualified "all" is incorrect. That's why I specified set membership,as that is the only logical relationship that is displayed by a Venn diagram
Thank you. Madsci_guy Madsci guy ( talk) 22:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you are a significant contributor to the article, your involvement in the discussion would be valued and helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Taking_stock. Cheers.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Please take a look on the new article I created. He was supervised by your father. Solomon7968 ( talk) 18:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I don't feel super strongly about which stub tag we use for that article, but I think it's always better to pick one and not clutter a tiny stub. Thoughts? Steven Walling • talk 00:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Re: Zeitgeist: The Movie Thank you for pointing out lead sentences should reflect the content of the article. It makes sense. Nevertheless, I am removing "conspiracy-theory based ideas" from the lead sentence because it's a buzzword with negative connotations, and although some of the article content relies on the spurious opinions of the peanut gallery (whom are apt indeed to slam alternative perspectives as "conspiracy theories"), I am wont to provide an introduction that doesn't reflect those opinions.
So, I hope your reasoning is a little bit stronger than it appears at its face: it is true, introductions should reflect the article's content, but Wikipedia articles are not exercises in academic writing. I am willing to go out on a limb and purport most visitors (taking neither you nor I as representative) read only the introduction. In psychology, we know that readers are influenced by what they read first and last (primacy and recency, or something to that effect). Extending this reasoning further, it seems unfair to use semantically-loaded phrases early (or at all) within an introduction; in fact, it looks outstandingly non-encyclopedic. It also disadvantages the entire subject (The Zeitgeist Movie), if we assume most visitors read the introduction only, and that these visitors are sensitive to the meanings and insinuations of "conspiracy theory."
There is plenty of chance within the article to describe what critics and skeptics have said. The makers of the film would not want their film characterised by the prevailing viewpoint of armchair critics, even though those opinions are bound to appear somewhere in the article. Xabian40409 ( talk) 00:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting my unfortunate typo "th eory". However, I meant the other edit. Thierry Le Provost ( talk) 01:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Great American Wikinic at Pan-Pacific Park | ||
You are invited to the third Great American Wikinic taking place in Pan-Pacific Park, in Los Angeles, on Saturday, June 22, 2013! We would love to see you there! — howcheng { chat} 18:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite. |
The consensus for τ is keep —— ¡not delete!
76.103.108.158 ( talk) 04:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm 174.56.57.138. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Linden, New South Wales because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! 174.56.57.138 ( talk) 04:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 6 (number). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 174.56.57.138 ( talk) 04:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Since you refuse to use the talk page, see this thread. 174.56.57.138 ( talk) 04:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Linden, New South Wales, you may be blocked from editing. 174.56.57.138 ( talk) 05:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
I'm not familiar with Wikipedia pages editing but I thought Helge von Koch was missing here. I now can see he is listed in the "Koch (surname)" page. I guess here are only some of the most famous Koch. Am I right? Or can you tell me why some are here and not others?
Regards, Ivan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.74.122 ( talk) 17:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, Arthur. I hope you're doing well. I recently got involved in updating the Vital Articles lists project. The Vital Articles/Expanded list is supposed to have a limit of 10,000 articles, but it is currently 300+ topics over that limit because of ad hoc additions since the list was originally compiled four or five years ago. Accordingly, one of the first priorities of the update is to remove 300+ lower-priority topics from the VA/E list. I have a pretty strong background in economics, politics, history, literature, pop culture, sports, arts, etc., and I consider myself a well-read generalist. However, notwithstanding my two years in a graduate economics program prior to law school, my educational background is really insufficient to be making priority keep/remove decisions on mathematics-related topics. I remembered your academic background, and thought I might invite you to be our resident expert for purposes of reviewing those VA/E sublists that are math-related. Do you have time to review the list and let us know which lower-priority should be removed? Also, do you know several hard science guys on Wikipedia who could review the chemistry and physics-related topics for us?
Here are links to the VA/E main page and the VA/E Mathematics sublist.
I hope you can help -- please let me know. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 14:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
It looks like I made a mistake by thinking I had made a mistake (undoing my revert)! I did not know that there was a sockpuppet at work here. (I did check at least one or two links and they appeared to lead to actual articles.) In any event, I am glad you became aware of this and were able to straighten it out. Donner60 ( talk) 21:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion in the "Content discussion, resumed" section got out of hand, so I have closed it. A number of contributors to that discussion wandered away from commenting on the content into commenting on the contributor. I would ask that everyone make a special effort to word what they say carefully. Comments such as "that no one with a basic knowledge of English could unintentionally misinterpret the statement, so I must ask that Xeonphrenic be banned from this page", are unhelpful and provoke negative responses.
At this point it might be better if anyone has concerns about the behaviour of anyone else in the discussion, that they bring those concerns direct to me rather than raise them on the discussion page.
I note, on looking over your contributions to the discussion page, that you comment more on the contributors than you do on the content. Though I want as many people as possible to get involved in the discussion, I would rather people stayed away if their only or main contributions are to be personal comments which undermine the process. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Let me say from the beginning that this is not canvassing. This is an attempt, with the best of intentions for Wikipedia, to resolve a problem.
You think those were "good faith edits"..? Can't say I agree. Anyway, I guess the IP has exhausted AGF with this and this. Note the edit summaries.. lol. I think this is a user with an account. Therefore I have blocked the IP for 48 hours (it's static) with the "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" box ticked, too. I hope that doesn't cause collateral damage. Bishonen | talk 12:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC).
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerographica ( talk • contribs) 15:19, January 29, 2013
The Original Barnstar | |
for deletion of all the https Frze ( talk) 08:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
Hello. In last few hours I made following alarming observations:
A user who edits Wikipedia in such way inflicts more damage than merit. If nowadays you are unwilling to spend an appropriate amount of your attention to Wikipedia, especially to edits involving extended privileges, then I advice you to take a wikibreak or restrict your activity to uncontroversial edits only. If you opted to continue the current course, then I will certainly support stripping your privileges on the first occasion. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 07:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Civil Nuclear Constabulary may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 18:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Arthur's having problems with his ISP and wanted me to post his apologies for any editing errors he's made as a result. Malke 2010 ( talk) 18:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that the Tea Party Movement case be suspended until the end of June 2013 to allow time for the Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion. Pages relating to the Tea Party movement, in any namespace, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions until further notice. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Frungi ( talk) 14:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 12 (number) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 01:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tea Party protests may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 03:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Please keep an eye on that page. Jehochman Talk 10:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Jasper Deng (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, when you've the time, I added a category to an article I created here [34] and it got removed. The coronaviruses are single-stranded RNA (ssRNA) viruses. Can I create a category for them? Or just add them to the RNA category? Malke 2010 ( talk) 21:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
If all those categories are really inclusions, rather than related categories, or in category by names, WP:SUPERCAT suggests #4 is unnecessary in that article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. THe Link is here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings ( talk • contribs) 16:35, May 27, 2013
Arthur, I was looking for vandalism and came across a change at this article. I don't understand the maths. Could you take a peak at the changes there? Capitalismojo ( talk) 03:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. You recently reverted my changes to Influenza A virus subtype H3N8. I'm a little confused by this. My changes were to provide a more specific wikilink to the 1889–1890 flu pandemic, and to include this virus subtype within the category for that particular pandemic. Can you explain why you feel this needed to be reverted? Generally, it's good practice to justify reversions that clearly aren't vandalism. Thanks. Rupert Clayton ( talk) 19:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
Hi, This IP has been vandalizing a variety of articles for several days. Could you take a look if you have a moment? Capitalismojo ( talk) 03:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I didn't create the 2061 year article, though tidied it up after it was created - but I don't see why you undid this work and decided it should not exist. Is there a policy on year articles? If so, it would be helpful to cite it when sweeping away other people's work. Thanks. Pam D 21:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arthur Rubin,
I am just asking why you changed 2061 back to a re-direct, there was more information in it than in 2059.
Thanks,
Mat ty. 007 07:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Which rule does my signature violate? Its not long at all. eptified 14:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I’ve to disturb you again. Pirokiazuma ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) certainly warranted a long-term, if not permanent, block. But this is not a clear WP:vandalism case: editing patterns are atypical for a WP:VOA. The patient demonstrated an acute competence problem as well as WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, but an attentive analysis of the edits shows that they did not bear a demonstrable intention to misinform readers or destroy the encyclopedia. Could you change a substantiation for the block? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 13:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear Arthur Rubin,
Forgive me for recently reverting one of your recent edits [35]. You see, I'm a big fan of Clifford A. Pickover. So I may be a bit biased in believing that the journals that he helps edit are relatively reliable sources. And so I disagree when I think someone implies that journal is merely a relatively unreliably self-published ( WP:SELFPUBLISH) source. I feel there is a difference between (a) someone writing something up and posting it on his own web site without any review, vs. (b) someone who, after his article has been printed in a journal, then making a copy of the journal article that he wrote available on his own web site -- a copy that may make a good WP: convenience link. -- DavidCary ( talk) 17:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I've restored a slightly altered version of it. The event in itself is significant since it was/is the country's first coalition government to be formed since the Second World War. Because of the first-past-the-post voting system it is rare to have coalition governments in the UK as, until fairly recently British politics has tended to be dominated by two major parties. I'm not sure I see the logic in your argument about the date of the hung parliament seeming "too particular" but I daresay you had something in mind. Paul MacDermott ( talk) 19:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Thevideodrome re-added "noughties" to the 2000s, not me on June 21 and it had not been removed for four days which is why I added about "abbreviation" again. I posted on the talk page of Thevideodrome to tell them that it is undue weight. I also want to apologize for adding any incorrect information to the time articles but may I ask precisely what "experimental editing" is on Wikipedia like you warned me about a few weeks ago? 109.151.61.122 ( talk) 10:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
As you can see, I'm not a registered user, which could be why you can't find any warnings but when I slightly edited 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2020 on June 13, all of this was undone as "unconstructive" and "experimental". That was what I was asking about. 109.151.61.122 ( talk) 20:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I hope I am not coming off as being rude, but this revert [36] reintroduces possible ambiguity for some our readers, but I'm not going to make a MOS fuss over it. It's consistent and allowed. I'll change the MDY template to June 2013, as the article has no DMY instead of MDY in it. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 23:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey Arthur Rubin
I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).
So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.
What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.
The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.
Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 21:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, I saw this on the BBC and thought you'd be interested: [37] Malke 2010 ( talk) 03:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
It appears you have decided to take out your real-life anger out on me in what is a wrongful and incredibly hypocritical attack.
Edits include
As anyone can see from the above conversation, you are in fact being incredibly hypocritical and contradictory, vandalising my page and my edits, falsifying information and personally attacking me. In fact, everything that you (wrongly) accused me of you are in fact doing yourself, with force. And once again, all that you are doing implies a personal qualm and an ulterior motive.
Ascendah (
talk) 10:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, I had some thought about the issues you raised about term graph and decided to merge the article with (mainly) abstract semantic graph and graph rewriting (adding the subtopic term graph rewriting). I don't know if you are still interested, but if so, I would like to hear your opinion. Eptified ( talk) 02:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " Talk:Morgellons". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 03:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
This message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee has decided to resume the Tea Party movement case, which currently is in its voting stages.
Regards, — ΛΧΣ 21 16:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
[46] Stop reverting my fixes to mathematical articles since you obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about. Here's some good advice - stick to what you know. Eptified ( talk) 18:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
"it is nonsense in set theory and in universal algebra, where I am expert;" Hahahahahahahahahha. Eptified ( talk) 18:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to " Come Edit Wikipedia!" at the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, July 27th, 2013. There will be coffee, cookies, and good times! -- Olegkagan ( talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 04:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Could I please get you to weigh in on at least Inquiry #3 (and on #1 and #2, of course, if you have anything to say in regard to those). TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
Note that the servers believe the 12-month block will expire in August. I'd like to suggest that someone reset that clock BEFORE the server-programmed expiration date. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Saw the note on blocked sock when examining another edit (repeat of the previous edit that you reverted). That edit has now been reverted and I noted the sock as well (new IP, 141.218.36.42). Perhaps semi-protection on the page, as the attempts seem to be happening weekly? Wzrd1 ( talk) 01:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
...for combatting OR and possible COI here. I was afraid I was going to end up 3RR-ing the contributor, but you seem to have taken good care of it. Cheers, Λuα ( Operibus anteire) 07:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey Arthur get a life pal. I lived in Doha for 10 years. You clearly know nothing about Qatari society and how influential people rank. -heyheyhey222333 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyheyhey222333 ( talk • contribs) 08:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes: "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" I wonder if the Pythons knew how long that skit would remain current. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, please stop your disruptive editing. As a veteran editor, I'm guessing it is not your intention to be disruptive, but your recent reversions of my edits do not appear to be in keeping with policy, and could be construed as tendentious. Specifically:
LOL. You thought I was sensible? Just who do you think you're talking to? You made wholesale, blind reverts of the entire article, without even examining them, at least three times. The most recent of these was the one you made just now, which you clearly did out of spite, since you then went and reverted it after you took a look at the edit.
As for the Amazon cite, nothing you did required commenting out anything, nor did anything need to be "figured out", since the citation was clear. If anything needed to be "figured out", then you could've talking to me about it, instead of making a series of clumsy, inept reverts that caused content deletion and citation errors. You have a great deal of temerity to have engaged in the persistent mess-making that you've been in the past 24 hours, and then talk to me about "sensibility", simply because Amazon was named in a cite. Nightscream ( talk) 23:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
From Editor858 - Arthur Rubin, it does not make any sense to merge the articles of the former Emir of Qatar (Sheikh Hamad) and present Emir of Qatar (Sheikh Tamim). They are both individual world leaders with accomplishments unique to their reigns and regimes. It would be akin to merging the articles of George H. W. Bush and George W Bush. What is your justification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor895 ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I received your message on my talk page. Docia49 ( talk) 05:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)I edited the first paragraph about the Burzynski clinic but you have changed it back twice to read, "The Burzynski Clinic is a clinic in Texas, United States founded in 1976 and offering unproven cancer treatment. The clinic is best known for its "antineoplaston therapy", a controversial chemotherapy using compounds it calls antineoplastons, devised by the clinic's founder Stanislaw Burzynski in the 1970s." None of the information is sourced, but yet when I changed it to sourced information, you said my sources were not reliable. I really don't understand your changes. Docia49 ( talk) 05:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Docia49 ( talk) 07:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe 6403 ( Talk• Sign) 13:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to " Come Edit Wikipedia!" at the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, July 27th, 2013. There will be coffee, cookies, and good times! -- Olegkagan ( talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 03:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
With you being an admin I'm disappointed with your editing of this page [47] against consensus and Wikipedia policy. After He has been described as a conspiracy theorist was added to the article lead, the edit was taken to the BLP noticeboard where the version accepted was He has been described by some as a conspiracy theorist. Then four days later you changed it to He is generally regarded as a conspiracy theorist. I again brought it up on the Talk page and User:Capitalismojo suggested we put it to User:Collect as an experienced BLP editor and go with him. Collect replied it is reasonable to say "(sources) have called him a 'conspiracy theorist'". It is not reasonable to include "batshit crazy" as that was an opinion from a single source, and is not placed in a neutral tone in this BLP. "Generally regarded" requires a more explicit source for the broadening of the claim than is currently provided. You then reverted it to your preferred version yet again. Six of the seven references are blogs covering a period of eight years, Wikipedia policy trumps your personal opinion and WP:NEWSBLOG specifically says "Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote...")." Please self revert. Wayne ( talk) 12:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Can you please respond to my specific counterarguments to your statements on the talk page directly, instead of just repeating the same statements that I've been responding to in the first place? Thank you. Nightscream ( talk) 00:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Your objections do not relate to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That's false and you know it. I have referenced policies and guidelines numerous times throughout the discussion. SELFPUB says that self-published sources can be used if five criteria are met. Your position is that one of them, that the material not be unduly self-serving, is violated. I have pointed out that you and the others do not seem to understand what the definition of "self-serving" is, and I cited three reference sources that provide the actual definition, and asked you how pointing out that you did not say something that someone else says you did falls under that definition, and for your part, and the others', you persistently chicken out of responding to this, preferring instead to just repeat self-serving, self-serving, self-serving, over and over again like a parrot.
And in any event, if my objections are not well-reasoned, then why don't you explain why?
When I find false material in the article about me, and it's sourced, I point it out on the talk page; I do not remove it. No one did. What they did was add Joseph's statement that he was misquoted. So what are you talking about?
And what precisely that I wrote at ANI about Earl King's accusation was not accurate? If you're going to claim that something I said wasn't true, I'd suggest you back it up. Nightscream ( talk) 02:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I have attempted to respond to your question on the gun control talk page. Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
ping|Arthur Rubin}}
so that the new notification system reports it, rather than cluttering this page.... —
Arthur Rubin
(talk) 21:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)By order of Starfleet, you hereby requested and required to revert to this revision. :p Seriously, though, consensus on that page is in favor of reversion to that edit. Please revert it to such.— cyberpower ChatOffline 05:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
You are involved. You cannot make such edits. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm finding your comments ( [48] [49]) increasingly troubling, almost to the point that I'm wondering if your account has been hijacked. You (?) seem quite sick of this man and have no compunction about injecting bias into articles in order to solidify your feelings as a matter of public information. If you are still you, I seriously hope you'll consider taking a voluntary break from editing this and related topics. Equazcion (talk) 22:06, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for an answer on this. Full disclosure, I'm not a huge Peter Joseph fan myself. I watched Zeitgeist to see what all the hubbub was about, thought it was entertaining and overrated, and didn't think much about it or him for very long. What you're doing here is plainly inappropriate though. Throughout this discussion you've demonstrated a repeated jump between several arguments for keeping a relevant statement by Joseph out of the article, rather than a genuine concern over a particular policy violation. It shows a desperate need to keep the article away from even the possibility of it painting Joseph in any kind of positive light, which is not supposed to be an experienced editor's motivation for editing; yet you've all but admitted as much (and may actually have). This latest justification you've cobbled together from I don't know where is the most ridiculous and I'd like to know if you can show that it's at all valid. Equazcion (talk) 10:31, 27 Jul 2013 (UTC)
@ Arthur Rubin: - On your magical user page, there are boxes on the right-hand side. For example, one says that you are a native speaker of English, and another says that you are an expert programmer. They each have an image. What are these wondrous boxes called, and how do I go about designing my own? Thanks.
Yours sincerely, King Ascendah (of the Kingdom of Awesomeness)
I used Stellarium for the occultation for that date and NEPTUNE is NOT near the Moon on that date, URANUS IS!!....idk what program you're using.......go ahead and check for yourself Drode714 ( talk) 02:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion (which affects you) has been proposed to close the Tea Party movement case. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Not famous≠Not notable. I agree that the property may be inappropriate for smaller numbers but seems reasonable enough for numbers between 50 to 100. (e.g 76). The Legend of Zorro 16:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The word must has no place in a guideline, and is just fluff that serves no purpose. All guidelines have exceptions, and adding the word "must" does not remove those exceptions nor does removing it make it more likely that there are exceptions. The necessity for removing the comma if the state is abbreviated is fact, and was pointed out on the guideline talk page. The example is helpful. Please revert your good faith revert. Thanks. Apteva ( talk) 15:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I hate to do this, but please remember that WP:BLP applies everywhere, including edit summaries, and this edit summary I believe crosses the line. Qwyrxian ( talk) 22:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I have objected to your proposed deletion of Nuclear pasta. Evidently, this term has been used by a number of scientific institutions, including the American Physical Society [51], the University of Tokyo [52], the University of Illinois (same link), and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory [53]. I'm actually glad you put this article on my radar as nuclear pasta seems a delicious (excuse the pun) topic for DYK. Cheers! Altamel ( talk) 02:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Arthur. The other day I was reading one of Collect's comments in the Tea Party Movement drama and I noticed he wrote "nit" when he meant to type "not", so I corrected it. I'm not Collect, or any other named editor involved there. I edit using my IP address lately. (There's more than 71,000 of us living in Centreville, VA.) Thanks. -- 108.45.72.196 ( talk) 23:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Howdy- I noticed that you recently blocked the IP address 99.119.131.212 (talk) citing nonconstructive edits. From my POV, the main problem with the user was his changing wikilinks, which I would have been happy to explain to him. I don't see how that warrants a block, much less a 3-month block, particularly if that user not given any warnings. I was hoping for clarification about a block. I couldn't find an AIV about the user. To me, this IP showed some hope and potential and I just want to make sure he is getting his full fill. Thanks. Have a good one. PrairieKid ( talk) 15:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at 9/11 Truth movement shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. — TySoltaur ( talk) 19:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Why did you remove the link to the wiki of Svante Arrhenius? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Polar_amplification&diff=568894679&oldid=568855544 Prokaryotes ( talk) 09:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be making incredible assumptions of bad faith, i.e. [54]. Those are legit edits, and even if it were made by a sock, it should remain in the encyclopedia. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect, how on earth is it "disputed" that ALEC is a US conservative organization? I included several reputable sources for that. "Conservative" isn't slander; it's a meaningful term that is well defined in political science and adopted by conservatives. ALEC is a self-described organization of "conservative state lawmakers" that favors "conservative public policy solutions". Here's another recent reference from a long-time ally of ALEC, the Heartland Institute, talking about " Conservative state legislators gathering earlier this month at the American Legislative Exchange Council’s annual meeting."
Here's a reference from the LA Times. Here's one from NPR. Here's Reuters. Here's the [ http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/04/conservative_group_denies_it_m.html Here's the Idaho Statesman.
And this isn't some recent fad. Here's a 1993 reference from the Washington Post. Here's a 1992 reference from the Denver Post. Here's a 1987 reference from the Spokane Chronicle.
It sounds like you're inserting your personal point of view to veto reliable, authoritative sources. -- The Cunctator ( talk) 20:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I revived a part of your comment that got overwritten by a later editor. Unfortunately this topic-area is a bit far for me to be able to comment on the substance:( DMacks ( talk) 06:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Help build the Wikipedia community in Southern California at " Come Edit Wikipedia!" presented by the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, August 31st, 2013 from 1-5pm. Drop in for some lively editing and conversation! Plus, it's a library, so there are plenty of sources. -- Olegkagan ( talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 01:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, I can't figure out why Newitz should not be wikilinked? – S. Rich ( talk) 04:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Harassing an administrator?. Thank you. — Guy Macon ( talk) 13:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Arthur. In case you missed it, left a request for you here. Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic ( talk) 11:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Over at Promised Land (2012 film) I reverted the IP sock I mentioned at ANI, but the history of that page now says that I was reverting two editors with usernames, not one IP editor. I know that they were IP edits when i reverted them; the "Undid revision 570485428 by 99.119.130.219" is auto-generated.
I was under the impression that the page history (other than revdels) was not changeable. was I wrong? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Now. WP:Echo probably reports, to the respective editors, that you reverted 6 and 8, even though you were undoing 4 and your edit summary demonstrates that you were undoing 4. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
As per your request, you can now explain why this study is not legitimate /info/en/?search=Talk:Effects_of_climate_change_on_humans#Removal_of_study_on_violence Prokaryotes ( talk) 12:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
For your tireless maintenance of difficult topics. bobrayner ( talk) 10:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC) |
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Yes, sometimes experienced admins need help, also.
Is there a bot I could use to revert all edits of an editor, preferably with edit summary "reverting sock of blocked editor"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
importScript( 'User:John254/mass_rollback.js' );
to your
Special:MyPage/common.js and it should be available. To use it: Select the "rollback all" tab when viewing a user's contributions history will open all rollback links displayed there. (Use with caution).importScript( "User:Kangaroopower/MRollback.js" );
to your
Special:MyPage/common.js and it should be available (after a
refresh of course).
Technical 13 (
talk) 13:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, the bug should be fixed now. Technical's whipping up a nice looking interface as well, so if you stick with the script, it'll start looking much better ;). Best, -- Kangaroo powah 05:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
AR, you forgot to sign the proposal you posted. I'll leave it to you to add it on. 99.192.77.211 ( talk) 13:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, In the template for this block notice, which I think you devised, I suggest you add some text that new instances of evasion and deemed to reset the clock for the other blocks, whatever the server says about expiration times. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
User talk:99.54.138.81, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:99.54.138.81 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:99.54.138.81 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Storm Content 18:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
121.58.224.85 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) this ip is running a bot program that is changing massive numbers of the heading sections for year-in dates and countries - FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP HIM IMMEDIATELY!-- 68.231.15.56 ( talk) 22:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I've opened an RfC regarding a discussion that you were involved in. [55] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 00:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
An arbitration case, in which you were named as party, has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
Pages related to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions. This sanction supersedes the existing community sanctions.
The current community sanctions are lifted.
Goethean ( talk · contribs), North8000 ( talk · contribs), Malke 2010 ( talk · contribs), Xenophrenic ( talk · contribs), Arthur Rubin ( talk · contribs), Ubikwit ( talk · contribs), Phoenix and Winslow ( talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.
Collect ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This topic ban will expire after six months from the date this case is closed on.
Xenophrenic ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Collect ( talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
Snowded ( talk · contribs) and Phoenix and Winslow ( talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor. Collect ( talk) 12:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I was serious about being persuadable in specific instances. If you are having problems with an individual sockpuppeteer, lay out a specific case (probably at WP:AN) and people may choose to modify the topic ban. There's big difference between modifying an individual topic ban and modifying all topic bans going forward.— Kww( talk) 14:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, is it really the case that the names of redirects should be bolded in the lede? I hadn't seen that before, and MOS:BOLDTITLE only refers to "alternative titles" - WOPR is just the name of a unique character that redirects to the film it appears in. The same goes for David Lightman, but it would seem odd to bold that as well. Is there a line of policy or precedent I'm missing? -- McGeddon ( talk) 17:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I was wondering why you removed the wikilink here? It seemed like a useful addition. Thanks. -- Odie5533 ( talk) 17:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your edit summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_National_Council_Against_Health_Fraud&diff=prev&oldid=572847889
You agree that there was a NOR (SYN) vio about a living person. That alone alone constitutes a BLP vio. Compound that with the whole thing not being verifiable and we had textbook BLP. The offending passage is now gone. Thank you. No point dwelling other than as a matter of policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.216.19 ( talk) 15:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
141.218.36.199 revert michigan kid ip = blocked account = new sock puppet
i guess now he is logging on at his school to attempt to hinder block
this new ip was created just one day ago and is essentially reverting your previous block reverts-- 68.231.15.56 ( talk) 02:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rex_Tillerson&diff=572984164&oldid=572042846
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rex_Tillerson&diff=prev&oldid=573067731
notice that his reason for the wiki edits in the first example is the same -- 68.231.15.56 ( talk) 02:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Could you re-evaluate 99.181.128.8? Since his edits all seem reasonable and good, yet it appears you reverted them automatically. Thanks. Prokaryotes ( talk) 16:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Rubin, could you review the last 20 or so edits from 99.64.170.58? This is a long term problematic editor (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Lysdexia). I'm afraid that there are good edits mixed in with the insanity, and I am unable to parse some of the formula changes in scientific articles. Kuru (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Hello Arthur. I just discovered that you were the third editor to edit my talk page, a long time ago, at the beginning of my career here. You made some very friendly suggestions regarding formatting and other stuff, with a pointer--I don't think I ever properly thanked you for it. In fact, knowing me, if I responded at all I probably did so in asshole mode. If so, my belated apologies, five years--no, six--after the fact. It's that sort of kindness on your part (and that of other editors) that countered my habitual antagonism and kept me going here and, at some disastrous point, made me believe in the project. I salute you. Drmies ( talk) 04:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Arthur, hope you don't mind my reaching out to you. I was wondering if you'd interested in reviewing a new draft I've prepared for the Climate Reality Project article. It looks like you haven't worked on the article in nearly a year, but you still appear to be the editor who's been most involved with the page, so I thought you might have a better understanding of the subject than other editors.
I'm asking for editors to review this draft because I've researched and written it on behalf of the organization. Because of my COI with the topic I won't make any changes to the article myself. This means that I am also looking for an editor to replace the current version with this revised draft after we've reached an agreement on the changes that should be made.
Since you last worked on the article it has been expanded and reorganized, however it has not really improved. I have several concerns with the current version: the article is supported almost entirely by primary sources and doesn't provide an adequate summary of the organization's foundation and operations, but focuses mostly on their initiatives. I've aimed to address these issues in my draft as well as to update the page so it is current.
If you think this is something you could help with I'd really appreciate it. I've explained these issues in more detail on the Talk page and have linked to my draft from there. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon ( Talk · COI) 15:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
198.108.141.254 revert michigan kid ip = blocked account = new sock puppet
i guess now he is logging on at his school to attempt to hinder block
this new ip was created just one day ago and is essentially reverting your previous block reverts-- 68.231.15.56 ( talk) 23:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Someone not using his real name ( talk) 05:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, the recent edit history on the article Christopher Langan and discussion among other editors on the article's talk page both suggest the need for a second opinion on some recent edits that have been reverted, and some concerns about content raised on the talk page. Thanks. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 23:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear Arthur Rubin, I refer to your cover note here. I am not clued up about the technicalities here, and I would be grateful for your advice and help. I know there is a banned person about, but I did not actually see how that came into the present matters in the article on Radiative equilibrium. I would grateful if you would perhaps enlighten me a bit about this, perhaps here on your talk page, or on mine? Chjoaygame ( talk) 04:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.
Please see Talk:Isaac_Asimov#Jewish_descent. Debresser ( talk) 01:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent visit to the Prometheus page, and your edit revert. During the past month I have been making a thirty-day effort to prepare the Prometheus page for a possible page upgrade. Page oversight there has also been helping to revert the unexpected amount of vandalism while i have been bringing in the upgrade edits. Someone actually wanted to credit Prometheus with the invention of ham sandwiches!
Given your recent visit, and the current upgrade attempt, if you could possibly try to make a top 5 list of things you believe would help the Prometheus wikipage this would be much appreciated. The page is presently at about 2000 on the wiki list of most visited pages and deserves a try at something better than its low page rating. Once again, thanks for your recent visit to the page! LittleIPEditor ( talk) 14:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps Prometheus is not your favorite cup of tea, but do you speak non-Markovian stochastic processes? LittleIPEditor ( talk) 10:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arthur Rubin: The only page related to non-Markovian stochastic processes is likely to be the Martingale page which doesn't go very far. It has been difficult to find someone who knows non-Markovian processes well enough to discuss this topic with. It would be nice to even see what the outline for such a new wiki page would look like.
Separate issue is that I have been trying to find someone who could do a peer review for a Holocaust related wikipage which i would like to nominate for FA status from GA status. It would need someone with a skeptical eye and i did not know if you or someone you might know could offer to do the peer review for the page. LittleIPEditor ( talk) 12:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
The amendment request you were involved with regarding Tea Party movement sanctions has been closed and archived. The Committee clarified that using rollback tools to revert sockpuppets is covered under the ordinary exemptions for topic bans. The original discussion can be viewed here. For the Arbitration Committee, Rs chen 7754 02:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello I was wondering if you could copy a deleted article. The page name is Ambeta and if you could get the source or somehow give me the deleted page thatd be awesome Zhiftuno ( talk) 21:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Arthur Rubin, why do you feel there is no need to have the article on PlanetMath in the see also section and why do you not want the url to be in the external link section? Lotje ( talk) 05:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, just letting you know I reverted your back to the IP's version which added a wikilink I find quite reasonable. If I missed something please feel free to revert me. Cheers. Gaba (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Now can I get a copy of my page please. Thank you _ Xetoprimus ( talk) 15:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The UCR Libraries are hosting three edit-a-thons focusing on their great special collections (science fiction, water resources, the Inland Empire and more) on Oct. 12, 2013, Oct. 26, 2013, and Nov. 23, 2013. Please participate if you can! Details and signup here. All are welcome, new and experienced editors alike! -- phoebe / ( talk to me) 04:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
This is regarding you undoing my edit to Bell's Theorem subsection: Original Bell's Inequality. These edits happened last year but I never followed up. Your comment to undo my edit was "That's just wrong. You seem to be assuming "independence" between A=B and B=C, which is not generally true, even if there hidden variables." So you're telling me it's impossible for A to not equal B and for B to not equal C? Because if that is the case then it should be stated in the article to avoid confusion.
/info/en/?search=Bell%27s_theorem#Original_Bell.27s_inequality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slick023 ( talk • contribs) 13:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems our friend has adopted a strategy of user-space abuse. Compare the talk page for
However, he appears to be propagating
The range blocks we had last year would prevent most of this. I was sorry to see the rangeblocks go away, and am unaware of any collateral damage reports when they were in place. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
you seem like an honest editor, thank you, debate is vital to democracy. 188.221.174.65 ( talk) 18:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you sure that you have reverted to the version of this article that does the best job of citing and summarizing reliable sources? Because a new editor has come to the Teahouse, concerned that their efforts to improve the article have been reverted. Thank you for your attention. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Besides Wikipedia:Purpose, see wp:Audience among others ... 108.73.113.212 ( talk) 23:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the material I added to this article seems pretty straight-forward to me. Those who support the estate tax commonly consider it ridiculously unfair to get rid of this, of all taxes. The whole thing screams rich people protecting rich people, wanting their children to come out on top, and rationalizing why this is all for the greater good. I'll say I was interested to see how closely, but not exactly surprised, that the Alstott article seems to cover all of these points. I notice Rawls is in the first citation. As she later says, "Starting from conditions of equality, if everyone could then agree to make a change, either despite their divergent views and interests and prejudices (this is Ackerman's device) or from a position in which they cannot know their station (this is Rawls's original position), then the substance of their agreement would be worthy of respect." A few paragraphs up: "One familiar device, used in varying forms by different theorists, is to inquire whether citizens debating the issue in some (more-or-less) ideal setting might consent to inequality. Even without entering into the debates over just how thick the veil of ignorance ought to be.... one can imagine a plausible range of solutions, all involving significant (but not confiscatory) taxation of inheritance...." All I did, in the last bit you removed, was to clarify what this argument from the "veil of ignorance" is in fact, most simply, alleging: that people oppose the tax due to vested interests rather than sound philosophy. Of course, many more people can be led to oppose something when you come up with a good phrase, like "death tax," and ask them how they feel about that.
Incidentally, I wonder how you take the first argument under the opposition section. "People should not be punished because they work hard." Is this not silly? If people shouldn't be punished for working hard, how do they support taxing earned income over inheritance? Then we have, "Free market critics of the estate tax also point out that many attempts at validating the estate tax assume the superiority of socialist/collectivist economic models." And then "For example, proponents of the tax commonly argue that 'excess wealth' should be taxed without offering a definition of what 'excess wealth' could possibly mean and why it would be undesirable if procured through legal efforts." This is argument by buzz word! Admittedly I am interested that to the author, and many readers, it seems to be inconceivable that, in any amount or in any context, putting unearned money into one person's hands but not another's, could be "undesirable." I bet a classroom of kids would get it, if we tried it on them. Not that criticism of "excess wealth" is actually a prominent argument. YMMV.
If I'm cynical, I say people oppose the estate tax so strongly exactly because of its manifest fairness. It's a tax that promotes equality of opportunity (not of results), self reliance, earning your own way, the basic connection between wealth and the entitlement to benefit from that wealth that economic conservatives assume in defending the inequality in our system. A tax that makes things more fair than they otherwise would be? That must be stopped! This, I'll acknowledge is "original research," in the sense that I don't care to find someone else who had the same thought.
Apologies for polluting your page here with a bit of chatter, but the truth is I suspect you didn't read the Alstott article very carefully. It isn't anything like an op-ed -- it's a careful analysis of how political lefties approach this topic. Seems quite comprehensive to me, and it certainly covers the material I included. Not that it bothers me too much if you delete a bit. I seem to be here for catharsis, mainly, if you'll please not use that against me. 67.168.11.194 ( talk) 04:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I know it was not your intention to create a controversy, but I went and looked at the links in the restored version. Virtually none count as reliable sources under BLP, and especially BLPCRIME, I feel. They are mostly court documents, news reports about the court case that are one-time events, and market wire pr releases. The effect is to add up to an attack page. So instead of replacing the prod, I tagged it for CSD as an attack page. There was also some discussion at the BLP noticeboard about this page: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Robert_N._Rooks. Thanks. -- Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arthur - I noticed that you removed the statement(?) from the user:99.181.131.235 from my talk page, and blocked him for three months. I'm curious as to why all this happened. I didn't see any history of vandalism, and I just saw a statement from him to me requesting help. Please let me know - take care... Dinkytown talk 08:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
A discussion you may be interested in is this RFC, a proposal to make the second comma in a date/place optional. United States Man ( talk) 04:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Yesterday, you posted on my Talkpage a warning for violation of the three-revert rule. Yet I notice that in your own edit history shows far greater number of reversions during a recent 24-hour period. I get the impression, perhaps mistaken, that you regularly—at least lately—exceed three reversions per such period. Please, will you clarify to me what how either I am mistaken about this or what qualifies this activity of yours ? — Occurring ( talk) 20:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to be belligerent, but I honestly don't see the attack. Was it me calling it a game? Tarc was doing an 'experiment' to 'prove a point' and even stated it's 'been fun to pretend' and characterized the act as a 'schtick' done to 'push peoples buttons'. I don't think it is a far cry to call that playing a game.
As for the conclusion, while mine doesn't match his, I think its relevant because I'm saying he argued a point he didn't agree with, but was capable of doing so without being offensive. Something several other participants failed to do. So again, I'm not seeing the attack as it specifically states he wasn't being, as I said, a raving hateball.
If you still think its an attack, I understand but disagree. But did I at least get why, or am I still not seeing it? 204.101.237.139 ( talk) 16:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Re https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pythagorean_triple&diff=next&oldid=579416318 -- maybe you meant to undo one of the two earlier edits of FJackson? -- JBL ( talk) 00:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I am not a Vandalizer please stop reverting valid content and making false accusations
Edit: my mistake I do not think you were talking about me
sorry for the misunderstanding if there was one — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Editguy111 (
talk •
contribs)
yeah the sources are there stop reverting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editguy111 ( talk • contribs) 15:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I have opened a new RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates for further discussion. — sroc 💬 08:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Arthur, would you please block Special:Contributions/178.148.130.96 for expiry set of five months, because he/she did vandalism especially unexplained or reverted unsourced music genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.178.245 ( talk) 00:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
No problems about the category removal at Burzynski Clinic, and thank you for your interest in the topic!
Have a great day!
— Cirt ( talk) 22:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I notice you recently reverted an edit to remove an important caveat that appears in the source from the article. Articles should not really say more than the source. grateful if you could explain the revertion on talk. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.196.6 ( talk) 16:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 74 Runs may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 00:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sachin the maestro may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 00:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I am currently working on an article about the political cartoonist Paul Conrad. Whenever I work on a topic, I always check to make sure the subject is disambiguated. Today, I found that Paul Conrad (mathematician) is a possible article title. I have not heard of him, so I am not sure it is notable, but he is listed in the American Men & Women of Science. He lived from 1921-2006 and worked at the University of Kansas on ordered algebraic systems and group theory. Viriditas ( talk) 03:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Your question doesn't say why I should do it. © Tbhotch ™ ( en-2.5). 01:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Didn't know you found talkback's annoying; I assumed you were just removing them because you had seen them. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, I have no interest in the subject of Plasma cosmology, but a newbie is trying to delete large portions of the article. I have commented on the talk page and left warnings on their talk page. -- Brangifer ( talk) 01:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
At WT:MOS#Why "unspaced" em dashes?, could you elaborate on the “different grammatical meaning” that you think spaced en dashes have? No one there seems to be aware of it. Thanks. — Frungi ( talk) 18:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Judaean preserves more value of antiquity and is more contextually accurate Jewish is a modern ethnic why do you disagree with these valid facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editguy111 ( talk • contribs) 08:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
they are not the same thing I have already gone over that the Romans called the land of Canaan as Judaea and called its inhabitants Judaeans and they later annexed Judaea Lebanon and Syria into one big province called
Syria Palaestina where the name Palestine comes from please revert it back I will keep trying to revert it as it is more accurate
Editguy111
(talk) —Preceding
undated comment added 08:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I read his comments and his website, and I got A Modest Proposal-like vibe from them. Then again, I also got batshit crazy vibe as well. It's hard to say if he is doing this just to piss people off or if he really is insane. Might be both. Viriditas ( talk) 04:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Arthur. I'm not sure what your intentions were with this request, but I want to make sure you know that asking another editor to make changes in an area where you are topic banned is a fast track to trouble for both you and them, as explained at WP:PROXYING. As far as I can tell, Arzel hasn't acted on this, and hopefully he won't. If he doesn't act and I don't see any more such requests from you, I will let the matter rest with this reminder. -- RL0919 ( talk) 21:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
As I don't want to drag the discussion off-topic, I'll post a comment I nearly put there here.
Arthur, I'm very much not trying to get you blocked; I'm warning you off so that you don't get blocked. But if you ignore the repeated warnings from myself, User:MrX, User:RL0919 and others, this isn't going to end well. MrX has already mentioned WP:AE, and to be fair, he's not wrong to do so.
Please work with us to prevent a completely avoidable block. You don't even have to acknowledge guilt. Just admit that your edits to Koch-related articles (especially Political activities of the Koch brothers) have been considered by some to be skirting the edge of your topic ban, so you're voluntarily avoiding those articles just to prevent the appearance of violation. This reasonable response will get all the pressure off you.
Will you do this? MilesMoney ( talk) 05:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
You are the subject of an ARBCOM arbitration enforcement request here: WP:AE#Arthur Rubin. - Mr X 16:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Arthur. I've noticed that you are a mathematician and aerospace engineer. Having these qualifications, I thought you could clarify some aspects concerning spiral trajectories of orbital bodies like satelites and the requested force laws that could allow spiral trajectories, aspects which are missing from articles like Cotes spirals which says these spirals are trajectories for moving in a inverse-cube central force. That article has some steps missing in the demonstration that could be clarified. Thanks for your answer-- 188.26.22.131 ( talk) 10:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
If you are a member of one or more of the IEEE technical societies, you may wish to identify yourself as such on Wikipedia. I’ve created Wikipedian categories for each of the 38 IEEE technical societies. The new Template:User IEEE member creates a userbox identifying the society and your membership grade and includes your user page in the relevant Wikipedian category. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a note. Yours aye, Buaidh 17:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC) — IEEE Life Member
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#En dash vs. "and" for multi-state metro areas. Herostratus ( talk) 18:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
All the best. — Unforgettableid ( talk) 01:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I fell asleep. As long as we're on the topic, do you think that 22nd century should swallow all those tiny decade articles? Also, are you saying you want me to remove "Centuries in the future" and "years in the future" Serendi pod ous 18:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.
Hello. I've become increasingly concerned about edits that MorningGlory3 is making to The Courage to Heal, which seem to be having the effect of portraying the book in an overly-favorable way. If you could review what has happened at the article recently and express a view of it, that would be helpful. I'm asking you as you have edited the article in the past. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 19:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, FYI I addressed a thread to you and VSmith at the other's talk page here. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Brian Josephson editing on Water Memory. Thank you.
I told you I would no longer defend your actions, but if you had taken SimpsonDG's hint and given up on the proxy editing, I would have turned the other way. As it stands, I've reported you to WP:ANI. Below is your formal notification template:
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MilesMoney ( talk) 09:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Here is the ANI thread's full pinpoint link. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 10:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Rubin, in defending you, Johnuniq conceded:
If you ignore the spelling/grammar error, I think you'll find another polite suggestion that you should stop evading the block. MilesMoney ( talk) 11:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I just noted in my watchlist your apparently exhaustive efforts to reign in the IP sock factory. I am, quite simply, in utter awe, Arthur. I don't know much approbation you get from Wikipedians, but I can state unequivocally that it simply is nowhere near enough. Tracking a creep over two years would make me lose all my faith in humanity, and yet, you still appear to be generous, articulate and detail-oriented. Thank you ever so much for helping to make Wikipedia a place where I can edit with a minimum of interaction with sock-puppets. You are a mensch, sir. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 18:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
If anyone monitors this, please feel free to comment on fixes. Otherwise, I'll get back to it when my block expires. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
As a clarification, I am not asking other editors to make these changes. As noted below in Other errors#3, I really am asking for comments, not for others to make these changes. (And the error in Other errors#2 is too complicated for someone not familiar with article to fix it.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
..., namely the axiom of choice!
Do you recall that I had a proposal for an article on the equivalence of the existence of group structure on all nonempty sets and AC a year or so ago?
I didn't know what to do with it, toss it or do something else. So, somewhat against your advice, I submitted it to "Articles for Creation". To my surprise it was accepted within a couple of hours, so here it is. There are a couple of issues with references. I posted a question over at Carl since you were on "vacation". Could you have a look? Best regards, YohanN7 ( talk) 14:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey - I'm still learning about Wikipedia, and I hope you can help me with something. I see that you removed dates on section headings for the Institute for Justice talk page. I recently edited the page, adding about 50 references, changing the tone to reflect NPV, adding information, etc. The new article is probably 95% new material. The first several topics on the talk page refer to the older version of the article. Is it possible to archive those topics? Would it be a good idea to do so? Or is it best practice to leave the older topics in place? Thanks! James Cage ( talk) 16:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
All the best. — Unforgettableid ( talk) 21:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 2010 | Archive 2011 | Archive 2012 | Archive 2013 |
Hi Arthur, would you explain to me what criteria qualifies something as a "test" for divisibility that modulo division doesn't meet? I'd like to try and convince you otherwise. ;) The definition on the page says "A divisibility rule is a shorthand way of discovering whether a given number is divisible by a fixed divisor without performing the division, usually by examining its digits.". Modulo division does exactly this, it examines the digits, doesn't actually perform the division, and it is very much a shorthand method compared to long division; it is also just as easy to do as the tests such as summing the digits. And regardless of the divisibility rule's declared criteria, calculating the remainder is the de facto "test" for divisibility, it is the most true test there is for divisibility. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that a modulo operation isn't a "test". — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidAugustus ( talk • contribs) 16:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
FYI: Per the talk page, I added "acrimonious relationship" in an attempt to please/make some sort of compromise with the article's subject. I prefer the original language you reverted, too, though. Location ( talk) 14:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
09:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
As a participant of the discussion Talk:Palestine#Requested_move regarding naming change of the page Palestine, you might be interested in discussion Template talk:Asia topic#State of Palestine on changing the title "Palestinian territories" to "State of Palestine" at Template:Asia topic. Thank you. Greyshark09 ( talk) 22:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
09:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Arthur, since I commented on this at WP:REFUND I'd better let you know you directly as well. Whilst I don't approve of Davodd restoring his article himself, your re-deleting it has just made matters worse. First new facts and sources had been added which together with the links to the rather rich Italian and German pages would make it clearly pass A7 in my eyes, and secondly reverting an action that you already considered wheel warring doesn't stop it all but only adds another spin to the wheel. At this point the refund board isn't really the place to turn to for a fourth admin to make a call, so I kindly ask you to reconsider your deletion. Thanks -- Tikiwont ( talk) 19:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The edit is: [2]. BTW, in it you added # (your turn), which was lost when I reverted your edit. S. Rich ( talk) 14:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC) PS: Just now, after I have reverted your edit, signed X's, added my own comment, edited my own comment, I see where X had said "Okay.. feel free to edit." I had missed it because the "feel free" was above the ersatz sub-section heading. (The misleading heading has been removed and X's list has been indented.) Still, I strongly recommend that we limit the discussion to whether a list should be in place. 14:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Arthur Rubin. I see you've been looking at Demonstrated Preference. It appears to me that the entire article is SYNTH, OR, not written as an encyclopedia article, among other problems. I left a note for X on the talk page, but frankly I am afraid of sparking a futile edit war so I am holding back further activity there and would welcome any contribution you can make. '''SPECIFICO''' ( talk) 18:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I see that you have removed the conspiracy theory on how the HAARP affects weather, as if it was "More Non-sense". Of course it could be more non-sense but it is a conspiracy theory nevertheless! You have to be careful not to cloud your mind with your own personal believes that it is non-sense or not. You have to look around, investigate and research the field. Many times, I have seen this theory in documentaries, even in main stream TV. This "Conspiracy theory" exists, and deleting on the pretense that it is non-sense does not serve anybody that looks for general knowledge. We could ask you, suppose that this HAARP theory is real, then what is the scientific basis principles that could make HAARP affect weather in the minds of the people that believes in the HAARP conspiracy??? What will be your answer after you have done your research on that mater? -- Fady Lahoud ( talk) 00:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
This is one of them Youtube (History chanel) I am not asking you to believe in the reality of it, I am asking you if you believe that there is a conspiracy theory on it. -- Fady Lahoud ( talk) 06:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC) This is another one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0ucpy1WYXY -- Fady Lahoud ( talk) 06:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Part 2/5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl2M9oGkjRs Part 3/5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MppReIR6hQ Part 4/5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyXu9Taa6_4 Part 5/5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNJKFhVpDEM Etc.
Look at all these: http://www.youtube.com/user/HaarpWeapon2011/videos?view=0
So you want more??? It seems that all around Wikipedia there is more information than Wikipedia... And Wikipedia is suffering the lack of contents. -- Fady Lahoud ( talk) 07:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. My memory is the opposite. There's certainly no section for it in the example layout at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years. I believe that a decision was made to replace such sections with articles such as Works of fiction set in 1989 - though there isn't one for Works of fiction set in 1345 (as yet). Deb ( talk) 21:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I have a question: How is it a copyright violation when your bringing in someone's quotes to Wikipedia like Sam Adam's article? Wethar555 ( talk) 01:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I made a minor change to my comment after you replied here [3]. Nil Einne ( talk) 14:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello! As for me, my note in 50 (number) deleted by you is so interesting, but maybe it should be in other article. Maybe, in Platonic solids or 100 (number) (just 100 is the sum of their faces and vertices). If this sum were, for example, 86 then it would be not interesting at all. But such a round number in this situation is unexpected and therefore interesting. -- D.M. from Ukraine ( talk) 22:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I understand your comment from the MfD now. The next question comes, can you have two colons in a page title? I think a better place for the header would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Talk header. Ryan Vesey 20:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, AR. I understand. Please note I had posted an inuse banner when s/he edited despite it. See my remark about the "edit war" on X's talkpage. When s/he did it twice I gave up.-- S. Rich ( talk) 06:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Can you tell me what a discrete semiprime is? I understand that a semiprime is a natural number that is the product of two not necessarily distinct primes, but I'm not having any luck with the modifier 'discrete' which shows up on many of the number pages.
Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntropyman ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the recent unhelpful additions to the " Paradoxes" section of the " Perfection" article. Nihil novi ( talk) 04:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Please see " Tunnel diode" on the " Talk:Perfection" page. Maurice Carbonaro is intent on reintroducing his irrelevancies into the " Perfection" article. I think it would be very damaging if he succeeded. Regards, Nihil novi ( talk) 09:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with Alan's history. And at the risk of sounding like X, can you specify what guidance I was infringing on with regard to the categorization issue? Egad, I certainly don't want to engage in behavior which even slighly risks blocking! My approach with X has been one of encouragement and warning. It looks like he's a former GI, as am I -- and I hope my kicks-in-the-pants along with atta-boys will help. I've urged him to edit in areas he knows more about (e.g., military topics), offered suggestions about article improvement, and I've praised him for dropping the out-and-out insults. Your guidance for me, here or via email, is/will be appreciated. – S. Rich ( talk) 18:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
BTW: I searched and searched for info on commenting out the categories via an added colon. Eventually I found WP:SP. In trying to understand it, I developed a suggested revision. [4] Please take a look. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 20:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, who's Emerson? [5]
Hello, Arthur Rubin. You recently participated in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other people's money. You may be interested in a discussion I have initiated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 February 2#Other people's money. Happy editing, Cnilep ( talk) 03:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I think you mistook Little green rosetta [6] for someone else. And using the third person pronoun, when you actually meant "you", made this remark a bit confusing. E.g., X had promised not to do it again. Was this late, late night editing, or early, early pre-coffee editing? Or am I misreading? (In any event, your reminder about the promise is most helpful.) Cheers. – S. Rich ( talk) 14:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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. -- Hugo Spinelli ( talk) 23:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, it was Hugo who added the "SPECIFICO's edits" section heading, not X. And I modified it earlier IAW WP:TPO. As I know you to be most even handed, I'm sure you'll go back and fix the comment. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 02:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, the tax credits are not deducted in determining "taxable income." Taxable income is gross income less deductions. Once taxable income is determined, then a separate computation is performed: the tax rate is applied to taxable income, to determine the preliminary tax figure. The "credits" are then subtracted from the preliminary tax figure to arrive at the tax amount. Famspear ( talk) 03:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
[7]
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 21:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Because, were 2 pi + e to have equaled 5 instead of 9, for instance, its radical would obviously not have been an almost integer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.170.29 ( talk) 14:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Arthur Rubin. Could you please explain this edit summary to me? Xenophrenic ( talk) 17:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for rev deleting the foul comments on my user talk page yesterday. It's much appreciated!
-
Mr
X 17:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I've created a new section on the Koch Industries Talk Page to discuss your disruptive edits there. If you can't or won't do that, I'll be forced to contact Administrators to help resolve this issue. Thanks. Cowicide ( talk) 22:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at
Koch Industries 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. .
Cowicide (
talk) 04:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Seen — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
For explaining the Idaho referendum process in terms of the California election law, which is familiar to me. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 04:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
Where is that quote from? It's niggling at the back of my mind, and google is no help. siafu ( talk) 18:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Killer Chihuahua 18:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, I oppose all of the "proposed topic bans" and consider this is a case of running amok. I did use one (three letter word) in my response to the proposal to ban you from all US political articles which I hereby grant you permission to alter if it offends your sensibilities at this season. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 20:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tea Party movement / US politics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Killer Chihuahua 06:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
the construction of the solution tries to use insertion , there is also a data prescan but algo is not debugged n its work awfully if it is corrected/debugged , only O(n^1,9)... i think it could do better... 93.118.212.93 ( talk) 14:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arthur Rubin, it has been a while since we last made contact. Perhaps you remember that I accused you of vandalism and vice versa and we were at the brink of edit-warring and wiki-lawyering. My apologies for the disputes back then. I believe we are contributing to Wikipedia with the best of our intentions. I am back on Wikipedia, and I hope that I have learnt more about how this community works. As you seemed to be very knowledgable concerning Wikipedia's guidelines and regulations, I'd like to ask you when it is appropriate to send an article through WP:AfD. Do you see yourself rather as a 'deletionist' or 'inclusionist' wikipedian? My previous List of potential candidates for the Nobel Prize in Literature was surely a candidate for WP:AfD. Now, it has been requested by Cnilep that List of important publications in anthropology be moved to Bibliography of anthropology. Your comments on this request are most welcome. Please see Talk:List of important publications in anthropology#Requested move. Anthrophilos ( talk) 23:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
You have said several times that you think I misunderstand policy. Perhaps you missed where I asked you to clarify which policy you think I misunderstand, and why you think I do? Thanks in advance. Killer Chihuahua 22:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua is a she. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC).
Put in your formula the Pauli matrix σ2, and you will get 1 = - 1. This means that your formula is incorrect. Trompedo ( talk) 19:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, I don't know if you saw my comment on the TPM talk page but the Al Hunt Letter from Washington is considered a column and is actually published by the International Herald Tribune. I emailed the managing editor of the NYTs. I also looked into Teaparty.org and couldn't find any notability for them, unlike Tea Party Patriots, etc. That edit relies solely on a primary source anyway. I'd like to edit both things at the same time. One, correct Al Hunt's bit by adding in column and IHT. And delete teaparty.org and put in Tea Party Patriots agenda/mission which is supported by RS. Are these edits that can be done at the same time or would that be two edits that might be considered reverts? Malke 2010 ( talk) 21:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
"No editor may make more than one (1) revert on the same content per twenty-four (24) hour period, excluding blatant vandalism. The three revert-rule still applies to the article at large." It's the "same content." Now,I interpret that to mean, you revert "Joe was born in Kansas," and you keep doing it, that's the same content. But what if it's in the same section? I just don't want an admin to say changing two different things in the same section that makes it the "same content." Malke 2010 ( talk) 22:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, I wrote an article for Jenny Beth Martin but when I tried to move it to the project space I got a message that an article for her had already been deleted. I reviewed the link and it seems it was deleted for copyright vio concerns among other issues. I left a note on the admin's page. My question is, it is a big deal to get this unraveled, or is it something the admin who deleted it can fix? I think she's notable and should have an article. I have RS, etc. Thanks. Malke 2010 ( talk) 16:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I should've read your message a little more thoroughly before calling a talkback, but I think we're pretty much on the same page. — C M B J 02:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I am not suprised or so upset with the result as I am with the manner in which it was done. You are involved, so I am not asking you do anything, just whether something should be done. He seems to be doing this quite often, and has had other concerns. Arzel ( talk) 04:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
While I respect your decision to edit the result, could you please edit the Talk page and the 2nd AFD nomination page to match? I would do so myself, but I am not in a mood to have the discussion I was having with the complainer turn into what could be considered an edit war. Shawn Is Here: Now in colors 04:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I understand you value these sections but most of them are not cited material. I felt no obligation to necessarily transfer them to a new page because they are not verified and cited. If these fictional mentions had been cited, I would have been compelled to preserve the material and move it to a new article. -- ☥NEO ( talk) 05:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)'
Thanks for restoring zero divisors and unity to the first line of integral domain. When adapting the previous editor's changes, I unwittingly transported the zero-divisor bit down with a block, and then deleted it because I thought it was in the first line. What you added in is exactly what I think should be there. Rschwieb ( talk) 13:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 23:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello!
I am rather sure that you are aware of the fact, that your definition of Integral domain is tautologous.
According to the prevailing consensus-algebra, a ring is a ring, but a commutative ring is a commutative ring with identity. - How beautiful!
What do you think of taking the confusing statement out of the lead?
Fylgia Fock ( talk) 17:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Why did you remove the proofs of inference rules of propositional logic??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.237.57.199 ( talk) 10:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, I just noticed that you blocked an anon editor, 99.119.129.34. This anon had made a few edits [10] [11] to pages I watch, which you reverted [12] [13] with the explanation "Blocked editor, not particularly constructive. (TW)." I reverted one of these reversions, and integrated the material with the article. I took a look at this editor's contributions: they consist of a series of about 60 edits, one every 1-15 minutes, in the approximately three hours from 7:07 to 9:55 today. You blocked the editor at 10:01. I looked at a sample of this editor's edits: they are generally minor additions of links [14] [15], adding suggested improvement boxes [16], and minor but cited additions to content [17] [18]. Nothing spectacular, but nothing particularly objectionable, and certainly all in good faith, as far as I can tell. Also as far as I can tell, you didn't contact the anon by leaving anything on his/her talk page.
Now, I'm trying to assume good faith myself: is there something going on here that I'm not aware of? You quoted WP:EVASION on the block, so maybe you think this anon is a sock puppet?
If there's no back story, what I see is someone making moderately constructive and certainly good faith edits for nearly three hours, probably from their home computer or other non-public device, then without warning or engagement getting slapped with a three month block. This person was probably online at the very time you hit him with a block. I can't think of a more off-putting and alienating experience for a new editor.
Is this really where we're at as a community? Blocking good faith anons on sight? I ask you to read this article on the effect of rejecting new editors, and perhaps reconsider your use of Twinkle
Erudy ( talk) 16:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
It is probably worth adding them now. Just removing the top category, which is what will happen if they are not, will create a lot of orphaned categories, and the whole thing will need to go to CfD at some point anyway. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I would like your input on a matter of a possible WP:BLP violation.
A reality TV show presents a known named man robbing a bank.
Thus, the primary source of information is the show itself. The TV director chooses what to film and the TV editor chooses what to keep - they are just as any author of a quotable source by the choices they make.
In a daily wiki synopsis for the show I say that "John Smith the known named man robs banks". I am quoting a reliable source since anyone whom watches the show also saw the same thing. If wikipedia is worried about slander charges - wikipedia says there were authors of the show, TV director and TV editor, whom if they presented some type of doctored footage they are to blame not wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bering_Sea_Gold is the actual possible WP:BLP issue - please see the talk revision history for the discussion of content for the wiki article on " Scott Meisterheim commited a crime on TV".
Thanks in advance for any work done to explain if or if not BLP.-- 68.231.15.56 ( talk) 21:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
FYI, KC is a "she".
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 16:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Please don't remove my picture. I am posting it for two reasons. Two show my photography work, and also because I like the fact he was showing the bumper sticker with the state's slogan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalindgren1 ( talk • contribs) 01:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit - I like your word choice of 'alleged'. (oops - please consider this a 'Barnstar') Jmg38 ( talk) 00:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Institute for Cultural Diplomacy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Cultural Diplomacy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Thanks for your comment at RSN related to the sole source for this article. I've gone ahead and filed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Legal_abuse. Fladrif ( talk) 17:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Just noticed that you blocked a user at the IP 99.112.212.104 and removed what seemed a good faith comment the editor had left on the talk page of David Shambaugh. Just curious what the rationale here was, as it's not immediately evident what the user did to merit a block, and there's nothing on their talk page. Thanks. Homunculus ( duihua) 00:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, it's a while since we communicated (several years ago, actually, on Recovered Memory Therapy). I'm having quite a bit of trouble at the article on the Indian guru Kalki Bhagavan. It is, admittedly, not a very active page and was recently AfD (keep). However, I think there are some serious underlying issues, which I have outlined recently on the article's talk page. One editor in particular seems to be preventing anything being published that varies from the line being pushed by the guru's organisation. I believe it is getting to the stage where intervention from Administrator may be called for. Hoping you can help by taking a look? Or if you're not able to get involved, perhaps you can suggest someone else who might be able to review the article. Cheers, Matt. M Stone ( talk) 11:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
1 edit corrected character representation in table for escaping vertical bar representation and some punctuation
primary necessity is to enumerate all boolean functuions for correspondence with recursive function enumeration to emphasize elementary boolean operation evaluation techniques using nothing but indexing
elaboration of concept edit ie. BA(f,p,q) = f && (2^(2*p +q)) occurred in hindsight
no more edits percieved other than to repost
any reason why complete table of all 2-valued boolean operations and consequent use should not be posted?
if not where should it be posted?
further to this point - the article itself refers to the truth table enumeration of the number of 1's (0's) being odd or even for the various Boolean functions but w/ no such comprehensive table being explicitly available (perhaps a link to the table would be helpful to see this), though the submitted edit provides a link to a table that does not explicitly identify the functions though itemizing the contents
the table submitted enumerates every possible boolean truth value combination on 2 boolean variables - not necessarily important in and of itself but the implications for a Godel enumeration of the same operations and the ease of this for plc implementation on low level cpu design are important
several nuances such as the fact only commutative binary functions have gates etc. become quite lucid
- there does not seem to be such a table in wikipedia elsewhere - such tables are a regularly used resource handout for several courses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 20:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
(
99.249.36.41 (
talk) 20:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)).
BA(f,p,q) = f && (2^(2*p+q)) => f bitwise AND with 2 to the power concatenated pq
extracts the pq'th bit of the binary value of f
why BA is "wrong" since no context was provided as to interpretation - which is the real issue for "wrongness"
editorial resposibility is to assist with the effort to ellucidate and present material — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 21:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
no problem - abstraction is senseless however ... well ... let's execute it and see what happens if a computational environment can "make sense" of the expression
a very common language convention (prevailing here) is that 0 is false and any non-zero value is true Note: while the 0/false convention is ubiquitous, in a few environments true is associated exclusively with -1 and in a few others with 1, while any other pattern of bits either is ignored, generates an error or is undefined
BA(f,p,q) = f && (2^(2*p+q))
the domain is {0,1,2,..,15}x{0,1}x{0,1}
the range is {0,1,2,4,8}
instead of executing the BA function the primitive definition will be used directly for the calculation
(the actual exercise on {0,1,2,..,15}x{true,false}x{true,false} also includes the requirement to print appropriately the numeric function converted to its boolean logic equivalent as an infix operator between the operands, a leading unary operator or a nullary constant - not done here)
for f in {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15} for p in {0,1} for q in {0,1} print f && (2^(2*p+q))
and the output is
0000100002001200004010400240124000081008020812080048104802481248
or for clarity spaces have been manually inserted
0000 1000 0200 1200 0040 1040 0240 1240 0008 1008 0208 1208 0048 1048 0248 1248
the complete boolean algebra logic table can therefore be calculated! and printed (transposed) as:
print " p F F T T" + nl print " q F T F T" for f in {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15} begin print nl+["False","NOR","~(q=>p)","~p","~(p=>q)", "well","you","get","the","idea","","","p","q=>p","OR","true"][f] +"\t" for p in {0,1} for q in {0,1} print f && (2^(2*p+q)) ? " T" : " F" end
and the output is:
p F F T T q F T F T False F F F F NOR T F F F ~(q=>p) F T F F ~p T T F F ~(p=>q) F F T F T F T F well F T T F you T T T F get F F F T the T F F T idea F T F T T T F T p F F T T q=>p T F T T OR F T T T true T T T T
Same thing in the vernacular of a more colloquial paradigm:
javascript: x = " p F F T T\n"; x+= " q F T F T" ; for (f=0;f<16;f++) { x += "\n"+["False","NOR ","~(q=>p)","~p ","~(p=>q)"," ", "well","you ","get ","the ","idea"," ","p ","q=>p","OR ","true"][f] +"\t"; for (p in [false,true]) /* Caveat! this is a js gotcha' */ for (q in [true,false]) /* told ya so */ x += (f & [1,2,4,8][2*p + 1*q]) ? " T" : " F" /* the ^ is XOR in js */ } alert(x); ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ or more sensibly javascript: x = " p F F T T\n"; x+= " q F T F T" ; for (f=0;f<16;f++) { x += "\n"+["False","NOR ","~(q=>p)","~p ","~(p=>q)"," ", "well","you ","get ","the ","idea"," ","p ","q=>p","OR ","true"][f] +"\t"; for (p=0;p<2;p++) for (q=0;q<2;q++) x += (f >> (2*p + q)) % 2 ? " T" : " F" /* the ^ is XOR in js */ } alert(x);
If there is a less senseless programming paradigm name your poison:
EUCLID, LUCID, LOGO, LISP, BASIC, PL/I, FORTRAN, COBOL, SNOBOL, JAVA, HYPO, JOSS, C & derivatives, FORTH, ERLANG, PERL, PYTHON, APL, SIMULA, ALGOL, BLISS, POP-10, PROLOG, GPSS, ADA, PASCAL, ...
The table per se is not important BUT the BA function & Boolean Algebra isomorphism is. A Godel enumeration is effectively done using the BA function over a 2 valued Boolean Algebra allowing for its succinct hardware implementation. It is a standard exercise to prove the isomorphism and that the BA function IS a Boolean Algebra. Moreover, when designing a rudimentary machine with the primitive recursive functions, and the selector function in particular, necessitating rapid prototype development - the BA function can expedite this profoundly. Freshmen do the coding above and later, implement the PLA hardware. Matriculating sophmores are expected to understand the theory behind it all.
The enumeration of all 2 valued Boolean Algebra functions is NOT an idle exercise and, in the context of recursive function theory, this is very relevent when doing a hardware implentation of that very Algebra when constructing an automaton.
Anyhow, if sensing the expression f && (2^(2*p+q)) is a problem then ... ;)
( 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 06:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 03:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
( 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 06:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)).
Ah ... there's the rub! is <math> and f && (2^(2*p+q)) is not! (directly) - there are some SAM systems around but not sure if any of them interprete as a bit wise conjunction on the binary expansions - for many reasons it is highly unlikely!
It is possible to coerce ... gotta' go for lunch! ... will provide a quick synopsis of how Boolean Algebra, RFT, Automata Theory, Formal Languages, ..., neatly bunble (oops a Freudian! bumble or bundle!) machine abstract modeling and silicon rendering
head is swimming with where to start
The lamda calculus and recursive conceptualization has to do with how any formal system is used to describe itself (realizing of course the Halting problem, Gödel incompleteness, etc. [ aside - which is why all diagnostic programs are failures! - several times profoundly failing machines run such diagnostics that incorrectly report no problem! - a badly skewed 5¼ inch disk comes to mind and the hardware techs were not amused, not by the failure of the diagnostics but by the {my} rhetorical observation of the diagnostics failure! - gotta learn how to halt soft tissue grey matter computation {reprogram it? been told I am or have the halting problem!} or at least halt the output!] )
This is the essence of how an abstraction such as the Boolean Algebra can be used to construct a computer. On a very pragmatic level this recursive approach is not necessary. On a very esoteric level the succesive refinement of computational architecture is currently a recursive symbiotic process of both silicon based and soft tissue based computation (this is how psychology and cognitive processing also becomes part of the milieu ergo the Freudian slip above - unfortunately, was not going to go here too!).
First the coercion (excuse my informalities - been a while since I've dressed up this formally - good thing this is a long weekend! hopefully this will not make it too long for yourself! - PS. as a student of law is not the output of i=0; i++ in contravention of software copyright? who or what gets sued when a legitimate program is -eventually- counterfeited? - sorry couldn't resist - right up there with ogooglebar! and RepRap):
The little game to be played below will do bit extraction with arithmetic only - and standard keyboard symbols which leaves out ceiling and floor operators (symbols too hard to type or cut & paste - will regenerate from 1st princples - can't find notes - I am really mixing my metaphors - will qualify or not)
informally ... x(n-3)x(n-2)x(n-1)xn selector function on pq ((S(n,f3,f2,f1,f0)( f3 x (n-2)x(n-1)xn /( 1x 2x 3) + f2 x(n-3) x(n-1)xn /(-1x 1x 2) + f1 x(n-3)x(n-2) xn /(-2x-1x 1) + f0 x(n-3)x(n-2)x(n-1) /(-3x-2x-1) ))(2*p+q))(f3,f2,f1,f0) ffo: find first one po2: power of 2 (though a crowd is better) aside 15 - n + 1 will if xor'd
formalities ... Generalized Selector aka Interpolating Polynomial
GS(n,k,f0,f1,f2,...,fk) = ∑i=0 to k fi ∏j=0 to k,j≠i (n-j)/(i-j)
BA: {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15}x{0,1}x{0,1} => {0,1} BA(f,p,q) = G(f,2p + q) G(f,r)=GS(f,15,GS(r,3,0,0,0,0),GS(r,3,0,0,0,1),GS(r,3,0,0,1,0),GS(r,3,0,0,1,1), GS(r,3,0,1,0,0),GS(r,3,0,1,0,1),GS(r,3,0,1,1,0),GS(r,3,0,1,1,1), GS(r,3,1,0,0,0),GS(r,3,1,0,0,1),GS(r,3,1,0,1,0),GS(r,3,1,0,1,1), GS(r,3,1,1,0,0),GS(r,3,1,1,0,1),GS(r,3,1,1,1,0),GS(r,3,1,1,1,1)) (in spite of the US gun control problem GS(r is not gun shot residue - yet) - the BA function is a Boolean Algebra provided composition is restricted to the p & q arguments - ie. BA(BA(3,0,1),0,1) is verboten (temporarily for now) but BA(6,BA(3,0,1),BA(8,1,1)) is kosher - the actual definition of BA is irrelevent but bit-bashing is unfortunately not succintly defined using "pure" math w/o resorting to the use of a programming language - bit extraction with ceiling, floor and modulus is possible except that it is not clear if modulus is acceptable as a remainder function independently from its conventional meaning and use for congruency but this is "cooler": BA: {false,^,v,|,~,....,true}x{true,false}x{true,false} => {true,false} - this last implies parametric retrieval of the boolean operators as generated functions themselves - this is a further development to come where the f's themselves are generated as the result of functional computation ie. executing a program - at the moment they can only be used as constant nullary functions - so a system will be constructed that generates components of the system - the value of a recursive function theoretic approach is that it allows for a homogenous model to not only construct a machine but also describe it's functioning when the f parameter will be changed and loaded with a new f as the computation of a program proceeds - to be sure the f cannot change in the designed machine's hardware (well ... there are BIOS viruses and some programs could actually permanently ruin hardware) - the BA function is shy of the mark yet - the model of the BA function now has an f that is malleable and non-distinct from data and the p and q can be perceived as functions - the use of recursive function theory here is exceptionally elementary but useful - the target is BAmachine(program) where if program=BAmachine then BAmachine(BAmachine) = BAmachine
(aside how in the h... did I get here??? - RepRap! - self-replicating automata - bootstrapping & making my own - to construct solid geometry, regular polyhedra, pseudo's and quasi's also - throwback to childhood pending desires and the 59 Coxeter icosahedrons - design software openSCAD - ... augmented it with composite Boolean functions {why? some reason maybe just serendipity} - whimsically wiki'd Boolean logic got algebra - saw reference to use in computer construction but no specifics or ref's to Karnaugh - "List of Boolean algebra topics" does not provide info - the characterizing of a BA via RFT to do this construction seems to be missing ... will likely need to rebuild controller firmware but not at as low a level as the BA but ... )
gist of argument: low level hardware's switching theory is intimately connected to Boolean operations - recursive functions, automata, etc. provide a good high level abstraction for machine design - computability theory has a foot in both camps - the tools will create a machine model that needs to, among other things, model itself and be Turing complete (the base system need not be Gödel complete - the 6809 chip had an HCF undocumented op which would trap the cpu in a Halt & Catch Fire unresolved address calculation so the instruction would never terminate necessitating a power down if one wanted it to do something else more useful)
Boolean Algebra provides the ideal paradigm for Computability studies and Satisfiability but not so convenient for exposition of recursive functions.
(Sorry the modus operandi will give a skelton approach with a bit of fleshing out with the meat and perhaps some potatoes thrown in before getting to the real muscle of this.)
personally this is quite a refreshing and edifying experience forcing myself to reconstruct long lost treatises, as it's been a decade (or 3) since dealing with these primitives
TBC - same channel not necessarily same time
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 16:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
will do this 1st - will forget again otherwise - pre-emptive grey matter conditioned programming ( 216.191.39.102 ( talk) 01:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)).
ditto 1st ( 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 05:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)).
The problem with F(x,y)=x(y,y) is we have no idea whether F will be invoked as F(F,F). I submit that F(x,y)=x(y,y) is a recursive function even if it's invocation is unknown!
ditto ditto ( 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 08:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)).
Appears to be the model for Talk:Fascism#Lead_post-RFC, alas. Is it proper for editors to snark about an IP as though he were an editor they proudly drove away? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 03:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
For fixing substandard minus signs in WP:MOSMATH. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 10:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I recently put a little note here but it got trimmed [ [19]]. Hoping it was a mistake? M Stone ( talk) 20:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
1 edit corrected character representation in table for escaping vertical bar representation and some punctuation
primary necessity is to enumerate all boolean functuions to correspond with recursive function enumeration to emphasize elementary boolean operation evaluation techniques using nothing but indexing
elaboration of concept edit ie. BA(f,p,q) = f && (2^(2*p +q)) occurred in hindsight
no more edits percieved other than to repost
any reason why complete table of all 2-valued boolean operations and consequent USE should not be posted?
if not where should it be posted?
further to this point - the article itself refers to the truth table enumeration of the number of 1's (0's) being odd or even for the various Boolean functions but w/ no such comprehensive table being explicitly available (perhaps a link to the table would be helpful to see this), though the submitted edit provides a link to a table that does not explicitly identify the functions though itemizing the contents
the submitted table enumerates every possible boolean truth value combination on 2 boolean variables - not necessarily important in and of itself but the implications for a Godel enumeration of the same operations and the ease of this for plc implementation on low level cpu design are important
several nuances such as the fact only commutative binary functions have gates etc. become quite lucid
- there does not seem to be such an explicit, succint table in wikipedia - such tables are used regularly (there are several variations thoughout wiki's pages BUT none emphaze the isomorphism of the true false bit battern with the enueration of the boolean operators using that same bit pattern)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 20:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
(
99.249.36.41 (
talk) 20:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)).
BA(f,p,q) = f && (2^(2*p+q)) => f bitwise AND with 2 to the power concatenated pq
extracts the pq'th bit of the binary value of f
why BA is "wrong" since no context was provided as to interpretation - which is the real issue for "wrongness"
is editorial resposibility to assist with the effort to ellucidate and present material?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 21:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
no problem - abstraction is senseless however ... well ... let's execute it and see what happens if a computational environment can "make sense" of the expression
a very common language convention (prevailing here) is that 0 is false and any non-zero value is true Note: while the 0/false convention is ubiquitous, in a few environments true is associated exclusively with -1 and in a few others with 1, while any other pattern of bits either is ignored, generates an error or is undefined
BA(f,p,q) = f && (2^(2*p+q))
the domain is {0,1,2,..,15}x{0,1}x{0,1}
the range is {0,1,2,4,8}
instead of executing the BA function the primitive definition will be used directly for the calculation
(the actual exercise on {0,1,2,..,15}x{true,false}x{true,false} also includes the requirement to print appropriately the numeric function converted to its boolean logic equivalent as an infix operator between the operands, a leading unary operator or a nullary constant - not done here)
for f in {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15} for p in {0,1} for q in {0,1} print f && (2^(2*p+q))
and the output is
0000100002001200004010400240124000081008020812080048104802481248
or for clarity spaces have been manually inserted
0000 1000 0200 1200 0040 1040 0240 1240 0008 1008 0208 1208 0048 1048 0248 1248
the complete boolean algebra logic table can therefore be calculated! and printed (transposed) as:
print " p F F T T" + nl print " q F T F T" for f in {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15} begin print nl+["False","NOR","~(q=>p)","~p","~(p=>q)", "well","you","get","the","idea","","","p","q=>p","OR","true"][f] +"\t" for p in {0,1} for q in {0,1} print f && (2^(2*p+q)) ? " T" : " F" end
and the output is:
p F F T T q F T F T False F F F F NOR T F F F ~(q=>p) F T F F ~p T T F F ~(p=>q) F F T F T F T F well F T T F you T T T F get F F F T the T F F T idea F T F T T T F T p F F T T q=>p T F T T OR F T T T true T T T T
Same thing in the vernacular of a more colloquial paradigm:
javascript: x = " p F F T T\n"; x+= " q F T F T" ; for (f=0;f<16;f++) { x += "\n"+["False","NOR ","~(q=>p)","~p ","~(p=>q)"," ", "well","you ","get ","the ","idea"," ","p ","q=>p","OR ","true"][f] +"\t"; for (p in [false,true]) /* Caveat! this is a js gotcha' */ for (q in [true,false]) /* told ya so */ x += (f & [1,2,4,8][2*p + 1*q]) ? " T" : " F" /* the ^ is XOR in js */ } alert(x); ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ or more sensibly javascript: x = " p F F T T\n"; x+= " q F T F T" ; for (f=0;f<16;f++) { x += "\n"+["False","NOR ","~(q=>p)","~p ","~(p=>q)"," ", "well","you ","get ","the ","idea"," ","p ","q=>p","OR ","true"][f] +"\t"; for (p=0;p<2;p++) for (q=0;q<2;q++) x += (f >> (2*p + q)) % 2 ? " T" : " F" /* the ^ is XOR in js */ } alert(x);
If there is a less senseless programming paradigm name your poison:
EUCLID, LUCID, LOGO, LISP, BASIC, PL/I, FORTRAN, COBOL, SNOBOL, JAVA, HYPO, JOSS, C & derivatives, FORTH, ERLANG, PERL, PYTHON, APL, SIMULA, ALGOL, BLISS, POP-10, PROLOG, GPSS, ADA, PASCAL, ...
The table per se is not important BUT the BA function & Boolean Algebra isomorphism is. A Godel enumeration is effectively done using the BA function over a 2 valued Boolean Algebra allowing for its succinct hardware implementation. It is a standard exercise to prove the isomorphism and that the BA function IS a Boolean Algebra. Moreover, when designing a rudimentary machine with the primitive recursive functions, and the selector function in particular, necessitating rapid prototype development - the BA function enumeration concept can expedite this profoundly.
The enumeration of all 2 valued Boolean Algebra functions is NOT an idle exercise and, in the context of recursive function theory, this is very relevant when doing a hardware implimentation of that very Algebra when constructing an automaton.
Anyhow, if sensing the expression f && (2^(2*p+q)) is a problem then ... ;)
( 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 06:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 03:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
( 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 06:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)).
Ah ... there's the rub! is <math> and f && (2^(2*p+q)) is not! (directly) - there are some SAM systems around but not sure if any of them interprete as a bit wise conjunction on the binary expansions - for many reasons it is highly unlikely!
It is possible to coerce ... gotta' go for lunch! ... will provide a quick synopsis of how Boolean Algebra, RFT, Automata Theory, Formal Languages, ..., neatly bunbled (oops a Freudian! bumbled or bundled!) machine abstract modeling and silicon rendering
head is swimming with where to start
The lamda calculus and recursive conceptualization has to do with how any formal system is used to describe itself (realizing of course the Halting problem, Gödel incompleteness, etc. [ aside - which is why all diagnostic programs are failures! - several times profoundly failing machines run such diagnostics that incorrectly report no problem! - a badly skewed 5¼ inch disk comes to mind and the hardware techs were not amused, not by the failure of the diagnostics but by the {my} rhetorical observation of the diagnostics failure! - gotta learn how to halt soft tissue grey matter computation {reprogram it? been told I am or have the halting problem!} or at least halt the output!] )
This is the essence of how an abstraction such as the Boolean Algebra can be used to construct a computer. On a very pragmatic level this recursive approach is not necessary. On a very esoteric level the succesive refinement of computational architecture is currently a recursive symbiotic process of both silicon based and soft tissue based computation (this is how psychology and cognitive processing also becomes part of the milieu ergo the Freudian slip above - unfortunately, was not going to go here too!).
First the coercion (excuse my informalities - been a while since I've dressed up this formally - good thing this is a long weekend! hopefully this will not make it too long for yourself! - PS. as a student of law is not the output of i=0; i++ in contravention of software copyright? who or what gets sued when a legitimate program is -eventually- counterfeited? - sorry couldn't resist - right up there with ogooglebar! and RepRap):
The little game to be played below will do bit extraction with arithmetic only - and standard keyboard symbols which leaves out ceiling and floor operators (symbols too hard to type or cut & paste - will regenerate from 1st princples - can't find notes - I am really mixing my metaphors - will qualify or not)
informally ... x(n-3)x(n-2)x(n-1)xn selector function on pq ((S(n,f3,f2,f1,f0)( f3 x (n-2)x(n-1)xn /( 1x 2x 3) + f2 x(n-3) x(n-1)xn /(-1x 1x 2) + f1 x(n-3)x(n-2) xn /(-2x-1x 1) + f0 x(n-3)x(n-2)x(n-1) /(-3x-2x-1) ))(2*p+q))(f3,f2,f1,f0) ffo: find first one po2: power of 2 (though a crowd is better) aside 31 - n + 1 will if xor'd
formalities ... Generalized Selector aka Interpolating Polynomial
GS(n,k,f0,f1,f2,...,fk) = ∑i=0 to k fi ∏j=0 to k,j≠i (n-j)/(i-j)
BA: {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15}x{0,1}x{0,1} => {0,1} BA(f,p,q) = G(f,2p + q) G(f,r)=GS(f,15,GS(r,3,0,0,0,0),GS(r,3,0,0,0,1),GS(r,3,0,0,1,0),GS(r,3,0,0,1,1), GS(r,3,0,1,0,0),GS(r,3,0,1,0,1),GS(r,3,0,1,1,0),GS(r,3,0,1,1,1), GS(r,3,1,0,0,0),GS(r,3,1,0,0,1),GS(r,3,1,0,1,0),GS(r,3,1,0,1,1), GS(r,3,1,1,0,0),GS(r,3,1,1,0,1),GS(r,3,1,1,1,0),GS(r,3,1,1,1,1)) (in spite of the US gun control problem GS(r is not gun shot residue - yet) - the BA function is a Boolean Algebra provided composition is restricted to the p & q arguments - ie. BA(BA(3,0,1),0,1) is verboten (temporarily for now) but BA(6,BA(3,0,1),BA(8,1,1)) is kosher - the actual definition of BA is irrelevent but bit-bashing is unfortunately not succintly defined using "pure" math w/o resorting to the use of a programming language - bit extraction with ceiling, floor and modulus is possible except that it is not clear if modulus is acceptable as a remainder function independently from its conventional meaning and use for congruency but this is "cooler": BA: {false,^,v,|,~,....,true}x{true,false}x{true,false} => {true,false} - this last implies parametric retrieval of the boolean operators as generated functions themselves - this is a further development to come where the f's themselves are generated as the result of functional computation ie. executing a program - at the moment they can only be used as constant nullary functions - so a system will be constructed that generates components of the system - the value of a recursive function theoretic approach is that it allows for a homogenous model to not only construct a machine but also describe it's functioning when the f parameter will be changed and loaded with a new f as the computation of a program proceeds - to be sure the f cannot change in the designed machine's hardware (well ... there are BIOS viruses and some programs could actually permanently ruin hardware) - the BA function is shy of the mark yet - the model of the BA function now has an f that is malleable and non-distinct from data and the p and q can be perceived as functions - the use of recursive function theory here is exceptionally elementary but useful - the target is BAmachine(program) where if program=BAmachine then BAmachine(BAmachine) = BAmachine
(aside how in the h... did I get here??? - RepRap! - self-replicating automata - bootstrapping & making my own - to construct solid geometry, regular polyhedra, pseudo's and quasi's also - throwback to childhood pending desires and the 59 Coxeter icosahedrons - design software openSCAD - ... augmented it with composite Boolean functions {why? some reason maybe just serendipity} - whimsically wiki'd Boolean logic got algebra - saw reference to use in computer construction but no specifics or ref's to Karnaugh - "List of Boolean algebra topics" does not provide info - the characterizing of a BA via RFT to do this construction seems to be missing ... will likely need to rebuild controller firmware but not at as low a level as the BA but ... )
gist of argument: low level hardware's switching theory is intimately connected to Boolean operations - recursive functions, automata, etc. provide a good high level abstraction for machine design - computability theory has a foot in both camps - the tools will create a machine model that needs to, among other things, model itself and be Turing complete (the base system need not be Gödel complete - the 6809 chip had an HCF undocumented op which would trap the cpu in a Halt & Catch Fire unresolved address calculation so the instruction would never terminate necessitating a power down if one wanted it to do something else more useful)
Boolean Algebra provides the ideal paradigm for Computability studies and Satisfiability but not so convenient for exposition of recursive functions.
(Sorry the modus operandi will give a skelton approach with a bit of fleshing out with the meat and perhaps some potatoes thrown in before getting to the real muscle of this.)
personally this is quite a refreshing and edifying experience forcing myself to reconstruct long ago practise and theory, as it's been a decade (or 3) since dealing with these primitives
TBC - same channel not necessarily same time
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 16:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
will do this 1st - will forget again otherwise - pre-emptive grey matter conditioned programming ( 216.191.39.102 ( talk) 01:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)).
ditto 1st ( 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 05:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)).
The problem with F(x,y)=x(y,y) is we have no idea whether F will be invoked as F(F,F). I submit that F(x,y)=x(y,y) is a recursive function even if it's invocation is unknown!
Rexamining BA(f,p,q) in this context the target is something like BAx?(BAx?,...) there is a bit (well more like a KB or maybe a GB) to go yet.
(out of curiosity searching wikipedia for info on CPU chip design and construction - early hit on "machine architecture" & "computer architecture" was to ARM architecture which is the chip for the controller mentioned above for firmware programming - now there's a blast from the past Altair 8000, Z80, Acorn BBC, ... did not know A in ARM was for Acorn)
searching wiki pages to see if this topic of machine abstraction to concrete construction is explicitly documented - no luck yet (there are of course many models that will suffice)
- Turing machines etc. ATM, DTM, NDTM, ... - Turing_tarpit - Stack_machine - Pushdown_automaton th original PDA! & its non-deterministic counterpart - Register_machine - Context-free_grammar - [[]] - Finite_automaton - Automata-based_programming - Abstract_state_machines <= this may be "closest" to the "target" - notes predate circa references by a decade (mid 70's) and taught the transformation into hardware via Boolean Algebra - UML_state_machine#UML_extensions_to_the_traditional_FSM_formalism <= warm too - Systolic array (trellis automata) - Sequential_logic - Combinational_logic - ASIC & ASIP - FPGA & FPGA#FPGA_design_and_programming - RISC - Complex instruction set computing - One_instruction_set_computer - Zero_instruction_set_computer - Programmable Logic Array - Formal_semantics_of_programming_languages but applied to hardware! via Denotational_semantics & Operational_semantics - Algebraic_semantics_(computer_science) <= ??? am curious about this - CPU Sim - Millicode - Microcode - JHDL - P-code_machine - Java virtual machine - Tiny_Internet_Interface Tini! - 1-bit_architecture - [[]] - [[]] - [[]]
ditto ditto ( 99.249.36.41 ( talk) 08:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)).
TBC, same channel, ... signature ditto recursed
( 209.112.38.254 ( talk) 17:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)).
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is " 85 (number)". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 23:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, could you please look at the block of the above user and make sure I did the right thing? Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 02:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not trying to start an argument, and I recognize your valued contributions to WP (which are more knowledgeable than mine), but my edits to Algebraic number are no different than many other edits I and other editors have made to make inline mathematical equations and the like within articles more readable. Perhaps it's a matter of taste on my part, but I find it more difficult and distracting to read inline LaTEX text than its HTML equivalent. Note that I'm not questioning the misuse of {{frac}} in math articles, as I was not aware of the policy until now. I am, however, at a loss to understand why my particular changes are not acceptable, whereas the same type of changes made on many other pages by many other editors are. — Loadmaster ( talk) 18:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Howdy. You are mentioned at Wikipedia:ANI#Interim_remedy_requested.-- Rockfang ( talk) 00:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Please take a look at Shepherd Smith [20] and its talk page [21],
WP:BLP/N about the same biography [22], [23] etc. ,
and the edit history of Outing [24]
and Outrage (2009 film) [25] (in each case multiple reversions to include material removed as being contrary to WP:BLP and under discussion at WP:BLP/N currently, and where the clear consensus is "Heck No!") as I think some very major violations of WP:BLP are being made and deliberately iterated (that is, to have Wikipedia in multiple articles state that Shepard Smith has been outed as gay.
For some idiotic reason I had thought that using allegations abut a living person's sexuality requires very strong sourcing but apparently if a filmmaker says "Y is gay" than it is proper for Wikipedia to so state as an allegation in their biography? Note: there is no claim by anyone that this is a "notable aspect" of Shepard Smith. Many thanks. Collect ( talk) 21:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Would you be interested to help me on this project? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map
I am trying to duplicate this economic report for all 196 countries. Would you be willing to contribute by duplicating this model for another country?
United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States
China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/sandbox
Mcnabber091 ( talk) 05:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
May I ask why my edits were reverted on the Virtual Reality entry? Mark Koltko-Rivera ( talk) 10:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
MKR: Could you tell me more about what you would consider evidence that this source is reliable? The term "reliable" can be taken different ways. Mark Koltko-Rivera ( talk) 04:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, Arthur Rubin! If we have not met, I'm AutomaticStrikeout. I've come here to ask you to take part in the survey at User:AutomaticStrikeout/Are admins interested in a RfB?. I am trying to gauge the general level of interest that administrators have in running for cratship, as well as pinpoint the factors that affect that interest level. Your input will be appreciated. Happy editing, AutomaticStrikeout ( T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/LA/SDCC1. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 17:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
i think ull have to forgive my slang: bcz in my country there some policy abt the teachs that the English is mostly for the VIPs (at least it was in the 80s when i was i highschool, im not such good plain english speaker... ok u help me with some compression data formula. please consider the followings here
we got a bin string: first well make it base three string , it will have abt 3/5*N , n number of bits of given bin string digits... in tipical worst case we got equal probabilities 4 each digit: we mark aiding 3/5 bits one (the most frequent ) digit... the rest of the string which is more like a 2/5 bits binary string will convert it again to base 3 n repeat the rutine untill we'll get a totally lenght of N bits but with the mention that probability of "1" binary digit is 2/3 (or 1/3) making possible, aiding ur formula, a 92% data compression.... Respect, Florin , Romania 93.118.212.93 ( talk) 08:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
thank You 4 answering to me, Sir, what i meant is some repeated routine (on practically different datas) and only one compression of all 1:2 probability of digits resulted string to b compressed. im not sure its working, anyway :) 93.118.212.93 ( talk) 07:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you really advocate exclusion of the Boston marathon bombings from the 2013 timeline? Bearian ( talk) 15:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I closed the ANI thread I opened about Alan but I would like to thank you for that great idea. Did you want to inquire more about that or would you like me too? It would probably be better and stand a chance of success coming from you. No one really cares what I have to say. Kumioko ( talk) 01:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Can you please undelete this. Clearly not in a million years a speedy delete. It is a high class London opticians, opticians to HM The Queen and has a Royal Warrant. I suspect that the nomination was made in bad faith as well. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 18:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I created a new section at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter about my questions, as per your suggessions, since mine was more of general discussion.
Other than very few articles and some technical querries,usually I do not participate in english wikipedia discussions.So I had no clue about discussion about restrictions on user Alan.
By the way,(I know we can not engineer every aspect of human life) , but still,if you keep problem of technical feasibility aside for a while and think, about "technological solution for sociological issue" , are you sure,criticizing technological solutions altogether, is not a logical fallacy and self contradictory; Whether blocking a user is not "technological solution for sociological issue" ? Is not maximum portion in concept and usage of abuse filter/edit filter in itself a "technological solution for sociological issue" ?
I am interested in discussing with you,and have your openion on some technical solutions and enhancement bugs ,if you do not mind .
Mean while any support in upgrading the article Legal awareness is also welcome.
Thanks and warm regards
Mahitgar ( talk) 16:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, I respectfully request that you change your "vote" in the survey. After reading your remarks, I think perhaps I didn't make my proposal clear. Per WP:WEIGHT, "TPm is anti-immigration" is a minority opinion. Putting it in the "agenda" section at the start of the article, particularly when using Wikipedia's voice to state it as a fact, gives it far too much weight. This pretends that it's the majority opinion.
In the course of the discussion, I've been proposing that it should be mentioned nearer the end of the article, in the section discussing allegations of racism. I would also carefully attribute this claim to the handful of persons who are making it, such as Matt Barreto, rather than using Wikipedia's voice to state it as a fact. I think this is also consistent with what you're saying, although from your "vote" you seem to want to keep it right where it was in the "agenda" section, stating it as a fact. If you agree that it should be moved farther down in the article, under the conditions I've described, please change your vote to Oppose, indicating that you oppose use of the term "anti-immigration" in the "agenda" section. Thank you. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 20:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, I see several problems with what you have stated above. I'll be frank and simply tell you straight away that I don't believe for a moment that you are simply mistaken or misunderstanding at this point. You have exhausted what little remaining good faith I maintained in you, and now I'm fairly certain that you are willfully misrepresenting the situation, and intentionally distorting the truth. Others may not readily see it, so I'll provide the following clarifications:
That would be a reasonable assumption under any other circumstance than this one. Had you been following the beginning of that discussion, however, you would have noticed that Malke had asked, " Who is doing this? Where's the RS that shows rallies, and protests, and marches against illegal immigration by the 'tea party.'" That's right, Arthur, while everyone else on the page was debating whether or not the TP movement was anti-immigration, Malke was arguing that the TP movement wasn't anti-ILLEGAL-immigration. Surely Malke must have "had a thinko" (new term for me, forgive me if I'm not using it right) and really meant to say "anti-immigration", right? No. She was demanding that I source the fact that TPers protest against illegal immigration. Even Arzel expressed confusion over Malke's stance, until I assured him she really did ask me for sources showing protests against "illegal" immigration. Arzel's response. Even North8000 was confused over Malke's use of the "anti-illegal-immigration" phrase, saying, " The above seems to keep jumping off on tangents. People keep discussing TPM actions against illegal immigration...". I set him straight, saying, "No, North, you heard her right. It's not a tangent, and there's been no false inference; it's a completely separate argument going on here." Malke confirmed that she was indeed intentionally talking about illegal immigration, not anti-immigration, saying, " I'm not saying you can't mention anti-illegal immigration. I'm challenging the RS that you presented earlier. And I've made very clear what problems I saw with each one of those sources." So Arthur, when everyone was arguing over the "anti-immigration" phrase, Malke was arguing over "anti-ILLEGAL-immigration", and insisting that I provide better sources to prove that TPers protested, marched and rallied against it. It was confusing to me, and to Arzel, and to North8000 that she was arguing over one term rather than the other, but I learned not to question her. When she later in that same discussion thread said "anti-immigration" when she really meant "anti-illegal-immigration", you claim it should have been "obvious to anyone reading" what she meant? Oh, hell no -- don't even try to pull that, Arthur. Apparently Malke talks about what she talks about, and assuming it's "obvious to all" when she makes a mistatement, well, nothing could be further from the truth.
No, Arthur. No one reverted her correction. I've checked every singe edit, twice. That's more bullshit, and I'm fairly certain you knew it was bullshit when you spouted it. I find that's pretty much true of most of the comments you make that are not accompanied by diffs. But your plan worked, Malke took your bait and chimed in with "I didn't know Xenophrenic had reverted my comment, if so, I'll add that in, too." Well done.
More bullshit. Have you even looked at the exchange? Oh wait ... that's right, you've been too busy to bother to look at that upon which you comment. I knew Malke had simply made a mistake, or a "thinko" as you say, and I even stated so: "You've mixed the terms up again." But she denied getting the terms mixed up, saying, " No I haven't mixed up anything. I meant to say anti-illegal immigration." And sure enough, there were her words: "anti-illegal-immigration" ... so I must have misread them the first time, I figured. But then I checked her edit. She had slipped in the word "illegal", without updating the time stamp, without noting that she had edited a comment to which I had already replied, and she denied she had made a mixup.
More bullshit. Since you don't have the time to actually read the discussions, and therefore have no real clue about my positions regarding anti-immigration and anti-illegal-immigration, allow me to quote from some of my own statements from the Talk page:
I know very well the difference between "anti-illegal-immigration" and "anti-immigration", and your assertion to the contrary is designed to intentionally mislead. I have never said they are the same. As for the latter being "misleading", where have I commented on that at all? (oh yeah, you don't do diffs, so I guess it will remain an eternal mystery.) You are the only person to assert that it is misleading. Anything is open for discussion, Arthur, and for you to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
And yet you still are unable to provide diffs. That is very telling. You haven't indicated tendentious editing in your comment above. I pointed out that Malke had mixed up her terminology, and she publicly denied it, but knowing that she actually had, she corrected her mixup by editing an old comment without indicating her change. I civilly asked her to refrain from doing that, and cited the relevant policy. That's not tendentious editing, Arthur, that's routine discourse between editors. I've expressed disagreement with certain opinions, and you misrepresent that as failing to "acknowledge" or "recognize" something -- again without evidence. That's not tendentious editing, Arthur, that's you manufacturing baseless personal attacks upon an editor with whom you disagree, rather than discussing and working through your disagreements.
What does it say about you and your motivations when you have to actually "search" for evidence of tendentious editing, or ask other editors like North hoping that maybe they can provide you with something to manufacture a case against someone? Think about it. When KillerChihuahua fell ill and was hospitalized, I started compiling evidence for ArbCom in case she wasn't able to handle the matter, but fortunately she was back online very quickly. Yet, in that short time, I was able to compile 11.5 typed pages of diffs of egregeous behavior -- serious stuff warranting sanctions, not hand-wavey vague accusations that don't amount to much -- without even trying. I didn't have to struggle to find something, anything, to try to build a case ... it all jumped out at me, and I could barely type it up fast enough. There's a clue there. But I'm a solutions guy, not a sanctions guy, which is why I haven't commented at the ArbCom case, and declined to participate while its focus was on sanctioning editors rather than implementing a plan for article improvement. It's why I don't rush to the boards when I see editors flagrantly breaking rules (like Arzel reverting the word "generally" out of the article twice [30] [31] in 13 hours - a slam dunk block). Unfortunately, since I see you have left your unsubstantiated personal attack on the article Talk page, I'm forced to take this to an administrator's board. Xenophrenic ( talk) 10:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
(Copying comments and responses from above for readability. --Xenophrenic)
ok lets say i accept this (thou i do not since all the editors were just fine till MC made this sudden change) then MC should pull one name at a time backwards (not wholesale changes deemed only by him) so we other editors can vote on each incremental removal - to remove 6 names or even 2 at a time is capricious and adds the complexity of a network solution set needing to be arrived at which is not likely to make any editor happy-- 68.231.15.56 ( talk) 20:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
74.50.143.10 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) i have noticed that this editor is a vandal-- 68.231.15.56 ( talk) 20:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
What other logical relations?
These don't apply to a declaration of "all logical relationships", when talking about Venn Diagrams.
http://www-01.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsALogicalRelation.htm
"A logical relation is an interpropositional relation in which a proposition is related to another, in reasoning, as
a premise to a conclusion, or an antecedent to a consequent."
There are very many different types of logical relationships, and an unqualified "all" is incorrect. That's why I specified set membership,as that is the only logical relationship that is displayed by a Venn diagram
Thank you. Madsci_guy Madsci guy ( talk) 22:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you are a significant contributor to the article, your involvement in the discussion would be valued and helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Taking_stock. Cheers.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Please take a look on the new article I created. He was supervised by your father. Solomon7968 ( talk) 18:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I don't feel super strongly about which stub tag we use for that article, but I think it's always better to pick one and not clutter a tiny stub. Thoughts? Steven Walling • talk 00:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Re: Zeitgeist: The Movie Thank you for pointing out lead sentences should reflect the content of the article. It makes sense. Nevertheless, I am removing "conspiracy-theory based ideas" from the lead sentence because it's a buzzword with negative connotations, and although some of the article content relies on the spurious opinions of the peanut gallery (whom are apt indeed to slam alternative perspectives as "conspiracy theories"), I am wont to provide an introduction that doesn't reflect those opinions.
So, I hope your reasoning is a little bit stronger than it appears at its face: it is true, introductions should reflect the article's content, but Wikipedia articles are not exercises in academic writing. I am willing to go out on a limb and purport most visitors (taking neither you nor I as representative) read only the introduction. In psychology, we know that readers are influenced by what they read first and last (primacy and recency, or something to that effect). Extending this reasoning further, it seems unfair to use semantically-loaded phrases early (or at all) within an introduction; in fact, it looks outstandingly non-encyclopedic. It also disadvantages the entire subject (The Zeitgeist Movie), if we assume most visitors read the introduction only, and that these visitors are sensitive to the meanings and insinuations of "conspiracy theory."
There is plenty of chance within the article to describe what critics and skeptics have said. The makers of the film would not want their film characterised by the prevailing viewpoint of armchair critics, even though those opinions are bound to appear somewhere in the article. Xabian40409 ( talk) 00:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting my unfortunate typo "th eory". However, I meant the other edit. Thierry Le Provost ( talk) 01:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Great American Wikinic at Pan-Pacific Park | ||
You are invited to the third Great American Wikinic taking place in Pan-Pacific Park, in Los Angeles, on Saturday, June 22, 2013! We would love to see you there! — howcheng { chat} 18:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite. |
The consensus for τ is keep —— ¡not delete!
76.103.108.158 ( talk) 04:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm 174.56.57.138. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Linden, New South Wales because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! 174.56.57.138 ( talk) 04:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 6 (number). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 174.56.57.138 ( talk) 04:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Since you refuse to use the talk page, see this thread. 174.56.57.138 ( talk) 04:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Linden, New South Wales, you may be blocked from editing. 174.56.57.138 ( talk) 05:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
I'm not familiar with Wikipedia pages editing but I thought Helge von Koch was missing here. I now can see he is listed in the "Koch (surname)" page. I guess here are only some of the most famous Koch. Am I right? Or can you tell me why some are here and not others?
Regards, Ivan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.74.122 ( talk) 17:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, Arthur. I hope you're doing well. I recently got involved in updating the Vital Articles lists project. The Vital Articles/Expanded list is supposed to have a limit of 10,000 articles, but it is currently 300+ topics over that limit because of ad hoc additions since the list was originally compiled four or five years ago. Accordingly, one of the first priorities of the update is to remove 300+ lower-priority topics from the VA/E list. I have a pretty strong background in economics, politics, history, literature, pop culture, sports, arts, etc., and I consider myself a well-read generalist. However, notwithstanding my two years in a graduate economics program prior to law school, my educational background is really insufficient to be making priority keep/remove decisions on mathematics-related topics. I remembered your academic background, and thought I might invite you to be our resident expert for purposes of reviewing those VA/E sublists that are math-related. Do you have time to review the list and let us know which lower-priority should be removed? Also, do you know several hard science guys on Wikipedia who could review the chemistry and physics-related topics for us?
Here are links to the VA/E main page and the VA/E Mathematics sublist.
I hope you can help -- please let me know. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 14:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
It looks like I made a mistake by thinking I had made a mistake (undoing my revert)! I did not know that there was a sockpuppet at work here. (I did check at least one or two links and they appeared to lead to actual articles.) In any event, I am glad you became aware of this and were able to straighten it out. Donner60 ( talk) 21:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion in the "Content discussion, resumed" section got out of hand, so I have closed it. A number of contributors to that discussion wandered away from commenting on the content into commenting on the contributor. I would ask that everyone make a special effort to word what they say carefully. Comments such as "that no one with a basic knowledge of English could unintentionally misinterpret the statement, so I must ask that Xeonphrenic be banned from this page", are unhelpful and provoke negative responses.
At this point it might be better if anyone has concerns about the behaviour of anyone else in the discussion, that they bring those concerns direct to me rather than raise them on the discussion page.
I note, on looking over your contributions to the discussion page, that you comment more on the contributors than you do on the content. Though I want as many people as possible to get involved in the discussion, I would rather people stayed away if their only or main contributions are to be personal comments which undermine the process. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Let me say from the beginning that this is not canvassing. This is an attempt, with the best of intentions for Wikipedia, to resolve a problem.
You think those were "good faith edits"..? Can't say I agree. Anyway, I guess the IP has exhausted AGF with this and this. Note the edit summaries.. lol. I think this is a user with an account. Therefore I have blocked the IP for 48 hours (it's static) with the "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" box ticked, too. I hope that doesn't cause collateral damage. Bishonen | talk 12:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC).
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerographica ( talk • contribs) 15:19, January 29, 2013
The Original Barnstar | |
for deletion of all the https Frze ( talk) 08:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
Hello. In last few hours I made following alarming observations:
A user who edits Wikipedia in such way inflicts more damage than merit. If nowadays you are unwilling to spend an appropriate amount of your attention to Wikipedia, especially to edits involving extended privileges, then I advice you to take a wikibreak or restrict your activity to uncontroversial edits only. If you opted to continue the current course, then I will certainly support stripping your privileges on the first occasion. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 07:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Civil Nuclear Constabulary may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 18:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Arthur's having problems with his ISP and wanted me to post his apologies for any editing errors he's made as a result. Malke 2010 ( talk) 18:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that the Tea Party Movement case be suspended until the end of June 2013 to allow time for the Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion. Pages relating to the Tea Party movement, in any namespace, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions until further notice. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Frungi ( talk) 14:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 12 (number) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 01:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tea Party protests may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 03:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Please keep an eye on that page. Jehochman Talk 10:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Jasper Deng (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, when you've the time, I added a category to an article I created here [34] and it got removed. The coronaviruses are single-stranded RNA (ssRNA) viruses. Can I create a category for them? Or just add them to the RNA category? Malke 2010 ( talk) 21:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
If all those categories are really inclusions, rather than related categories, or in category by names, WP:SUPERCAT suggests #4 is unnecessary in that article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. THe Link is here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings ( talk • contribs) 16:35, May 27, 2013
Arthur, I was looking for vandalism and came across a change at this article. I don't understand the maths. Could you take a peak at the changes there? Capitalismojo ( talk) 03:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. You recently reverted my changes to Influenza A virus subtype H3N8. I'm a little confused by this. My changes were to provide a more specific wikilink to the 1889–1890 flu pandemic, and to include this virus subtype within the category for that particular pandemic. Can you explain why you feel this needed to be reverted? Generally, it's good practice to justify reversions that clearly aren't vandalism. Thanks. Rupert Clayton ( talk) 19:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
Hi, This IP has been vandalizing a variety of articles for several days. Could you take a look if you have a moment? Capitalismojo ( talk) 03:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I didn't create the 2061 year article, though tidied it up after it was created - but I don't see why you undid this work and decided it should not exist. Is there a policy on year articles? If so, it would be helpful to cite it when sweeping away other people's work. Thanks. Pam D 21:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arthur Rubin,
I am just asking why you changed 2061 back to a re-direct, there was more information in it than in 2059.
Thanks,
Mat ty. 007 07:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Which rule does my signature violate? Its not long at all. eptified 14:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I’ve to disturb you again. Pirokiazuma ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) certainly warranted a long-term, if not permanent, block. But this is not a clear WP:vandalism case: editing patterns are atypical for a WP:VOA. The patient demonstrated an acute competence problem as well as WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, but an attentive analysis of the edits shows that they did not bear a demonstrable intention to misinform readers or destroy the encyclopedia. Could you change a substantiation for the block? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 13:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear Arthur Rubin,
Forgive me for recently reverting one of your recent edits [35]. You see, I'm a big fan of Clifford A. Pickover. So I may be a bit biased in believing that the journals that he helps edit are relatively reliable sources. And so I disagree when I think someone implies that journal is merely a relatively unreliably self-published ( WP:SELFPUBLISH) source. I feel there is a difference between (a) someone writing something up and posting it on his own web site without any review, vs. (b) someone who, after his article has been printed in a journal, then making a copy of the journal article that he wrote available on his own web site -- a copy that may make a good WP: convenience link. -- DavidCary ( talk) 17:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I've restored a slightly altered version of it. The event in itself is significant since it was/is the country's first coalition government to be formed since the Second World War. Because of the first-past-the-post voting system it is rare to have coalition governments in the UK as, until fairly recently British politics has tended to be dominated by two major parties. I'm not sure I see the logic in your argument about the date of the hung parliament seeming "too particular" but I daresay you had something in mind. Paul MacDermott ( talk) 19:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Thevideodrome re-added "noughties" to the 2000s, not me on June 21 and it had not been removed for four days which is why I added about "abbreviation" again. I posted on the talk page of Thevideodrome to tell them that it is undue weight. I also want to apologize for adding any incorrect information to the time articles but may I ask precisely what "experimental editing" is on Wikipedia like you warned me about a few weeks ago? 109.151.61.122 ( talk) 10:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
As you can see, I'm not a registered user, which could be why you can't find any warnings but when I slightly edited 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2020 on June 13, all of this was undone as "unconstructive" and "experimental". That was what I was asking about. 109.151.61.122 ( talk) 20:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I hope I am not coming off as being rude, but this revert [36] reintroduces possible ambiguity for some our readers, but I'm not going to make a MOS fuss over it. It's consistent and allowed. I'll change the MDY template to June 2013, as the article has no DMY instead of MDY in it. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 23:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey Arthur Rubin
I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).
So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.
What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.
The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.
Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 21:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, I saw this on the BBC and thought you'd be interested: [37] Malke 2010 ( talk) 03:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
It appears you have decided to take out your real-life anger out on me in what is a wrongful and incredibly hypocritical attack.
Edits include
As anyone can see from the above conversation, you are in fact being incredibly hypocritical and contradictory, vandalising my page and my edits, falsifying information and personally attacking me. In fact, everything that you (wrongly) accused me of you are in fact doing yourself, with force. And once again, all that you are doing implies a personal qualm and an ulterior motive.
Ascendah (
talk) 10:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, I had some thought about the issues you raised about term graph and decided to merge the article with (mainly) abstract semantic graph and graph rewriting (adding the subtopic term graph rewriting). I don't know if you are still interested, but if so, I would like to hear your opinion. Eptified ( talk) 02:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " Talk:Morgellons". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 03:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
This message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee has decided to resume the Tea Party movement case, which currently is in its voting stages.
Regards, — ΛΧΣ 21 16:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
[46] Stop reverting my fixes to mathematical articles since you obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about. Here's some good advice - stick to what you know. Eptified ( talk) 18:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
"it is nonsense in set theory and in universal algebra, where I am expert;" Hahahahahahahahahha. Eptified ( talk) 18:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to " Come Edit Wikipedia!" at the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, July 27th, 2013. There will be coffee, cookies, and good times! -- Olegkagan ( talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 04:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Could I please get you to weigh in on at least Inquiry #3 (and on #1 and #2, of course, if you have anything to say in regard to those). TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
Note that the servers believe the 12-month block will expire in August. I'd like to suggest that someone reset that clock BEFORE the server-programmed expiration date. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Saw the note on blocked sock when examining another edit (repeat of the previous edit that you reverted). That edit has now been reverted and I noted the sock as well (new IP, 141.218.36.42). Perhaps semi-protection on the page, as the attempts seem to be happening weekly? Wzrd1 ( talk) 01:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
...for combatting OR and possible COI here. I was afraid I was going to end up 3RR-ing the contributor, but you seem to have taken good care of it. Cheers, Λuα ( Operibus anteire) 07:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey Arthur get a life pal. I lived in Doha for 10 years. You clearly know nothing about Qatari society and how influential people rank. -heyheyhey222333 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyheyhey222333 ( talk • contribs) 08:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes: "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" I wonder if the Pythons knew how long that skit would remain current. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, please stop your disruptive editing. As a veteran editor, I'm guessing it is not your intention to be disruptive, but your recent reversions of my edits do not appear to be in keeping with policy, and could be construed as tendentious. Specifically:
LOL. You thought I was sensible? Just who do you think you're talking to? You made wholesale, blind reverts of the entire article, without even examining them, at least three times. The most recent of these was the one you made just now, which you clearly did out of spite, since you then went and reverted it after you took a look at the edit.
As for the Amazon cite, nothing you did required commenting out anything, nor did anything need to be "figured out", since the citation was clear. If anything needed to be "figured out", then you could've talking to me about it, instead of making a series of clumsy, inept reverts that caused content deletion and citation errors. You have a great deal of temerity to have engaged in the persistent mess-making that you've been in the past 24 hours, and then talk to me about "sensibility", simply because Amazon was named in a cite. Nightscream ( talk) 23:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
From Editor858 - Arthur Rubin, it does not make any sense to merge the articles of the former Emir of Qatar (Sheikh Hamad) and present Emir of Qatar (Sheikh Tamim). They are both individual world leaders with accomplishments unique to their reigns and regimes. It would be akin to merging the articles of George H. W. Bush and George W Bush. What is your justification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor895 ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I received your message on my talk page. Docia49 ( talk) 05:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)I edited the first paragraph about the Burzynski clinic but you have changed it back twice to read, "The Burzynski Clinic is a clinic in Texas, United States founded in 1976 and offering unproven cancer treatment. The clinic is best known for its "antineoplaston therapy", a controversial chemotherapy using compounds it calls antineoplastons, devised by the clinic's founder Stanislaw Burzynski in the 1970s." None of the information is sourced, but yet when I changed it to sourced information, you said my sources were not reliable. I really don't understand your changes. Docia49 ( talk) 05:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Docia49 ( talk) 07:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe 6403 ( Talk• Sign) 13:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to " Come Edit Wikipedia!" at the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, July 27th, 2013. There will be coffee, cookies, and good times! -- Olegkagan ( talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 03:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
With you being an admin I'm disappointed with your editing of this page [47] against consensus and Wikipedia policy. After He has been described as a conspiracy theorist was added to the article lead, the edit was taken to the BLP noticeboard where the version accepted was He has been described by some as a conspiracy theorist. Then four days later you changed it to He is generally regarded as a conspiracy theorist. I again brought it up on the Talk page and User:Capitalismojo suggested we put it to User:Collect as an experienced BLP editor and go with him. Collect replied it is reasonable to say "(sources) have called him a 'conspiracy theorist'". It is not reasonable to include "batshit crazy" as that was an opinion from a single source, and is not placed in a neutral tone in this BLP. "Generally regarded" requires a more explicit source for the broadening of the claim than is currently provided. You then reverted it to your preferred version yet again. Six of the seven references are blogs covering a period of eight years, Wikipedia policy trumps your personal opinion and WP:NEWSBLOG specifically says "Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote...")." Please self revert. Wayne ( talk) 12:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Can you please respond to my specific counterarguments to your statements on the talk page directly, instead of just repeating the same statements that I've been responding to in the first place? Thank you. Nightscream ( talk) 00:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Your objections do not relate to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That's false and you know it. I have referenced policies and guidelines numerous times throughout the discussion. SELFPUB says that self-published sources can be used if five criteria are met. Your position is that one of them, that the material not be unduly self-serving, is violated. I have pointed out that you and the others do not seem to understand what the definition of "self-serving" is, and I cited three reference sources that provide the actual definition, and asked you how pointing out that you did not say something that someone else says you did falls under that definition, and for your part, and the others', you persistently chicken out of responding to this, preferring instead to just repeat self-serving, self-serving, self-serving, over and over again like a parrot.
And in any event, if my objections are not well-reasoned, then why don't you explain why?
When I find false material in the article about me, and it's sourced, I point it out on the talk page; I do not remove it. No one did. What they did was add Joseph's statement that he was misquoted. So what are you talking about?
And what precisely that I wrote at ANI about Earl King's accusation was not accurate? If you're going to claim that something I said wasn't true, I'd suggest you back it up. Nightscream ( talk) 02:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I have attempted to respond to your question on the gun control talk page. Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
ping|Arthur Rubin}}
so that the new notification system reports it, rather than cluttering this page.... —
Arthur Rubin
(talk) 21:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)By order of Starfleet, you hereby requested and required to revert to this revision. :p Seriously, though, consensus on that page is in favor of reversion to that edit. Please revert it to such.— cyberpower ChatOffline 05:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
You are involved. You cannot make such edits. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm finding your comments ( [48] [49]) increasingly troubling, almost to the point that I'm wondering if your account has been hijacked. You (?) seem quite sick of this man and have no compunction about injecting bias into articles in order to solidify your feelings as a matter of public information. If you are still you, I seriously hope you'll consider taking a voluntary break from editing this and related topics. Equazcion (talk) 22:06, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for an answer on this. Full disclosure, I'm not a huge Peter Joseph fan myself. I watched Zeitgeist to see what all the hubbub was about, thought it was entertaining and overrated, and didn't think much about it or him for very long. What you're doing here is plainly inappropriate though. Throughout this discussion you've demonstrated a repeated jump between several arguments for keeping a relevant statement by Joseph out of the article, rather than a genuine concern over a particular policy violation. It shows a desperate need to keep the article away from even the possibility of it painting Joseph in any kind of positive light, which is not supposed to be an experienced editor's motivation for editing; yet you've all but admitted as much (and may actually have). This latest justification you've cobbled together from I don't know where is the most ridiculous and I'd like to know if you can show that it's at all valid. Equazcion (talk) 10:31, 27 Jul 2013 (UTC)
@ Arthur Rubin: - On your magical user page, there are boxes on the right-hand side. For example, one says that you are a native speaker of English, and another says that you are an expert programmer. They each have an image. What are these wondrous boxes called, and how do I go about designing my own? Thanks.
Yours sincerely, King Ascendah (of the Kingdom of Awesomeness)
I used Stellarium for the occultation for that date and NEPTUNE is NOT near the Moon on that date, URANUS IS!!....idk what program you're using.......go ahead and check for yourself Drode714 ( talk) 02:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion (which affects you) has been proposed to close the Tea Party movement case. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Not famous≠Not notable. I agree that the property may be inappropriate for smaller numbers but seems reasonable enough for numbers between 50 to 100. (e.g 76). The Legend of Zorro 16:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The word must has no place in a guideline, and is just fluff that serves no purpose. All guidelines have exceptions, and adding the word "must" does not remove those exceptions nor does removing it make it more likely that there are exceptions. The necessity for removing the comma if the state is abbreviated is fact, and was pointed out on the guideline talk page. The example is helpful. Please revert your good faith revert. Thanks. Apteva ( talk) 15:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I hate to do this, but please remember that WP:BLP applies everywhere, including edit summaries, and this edit summary I believe crosses the line. Qwyrxian ( talk) 22:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I have objected to your proposed deletion of Nuclear pasta. Evidently, this term has been used by a number of scientific institutions, including the American Physical Society [51], the University of Tokyo [52], the University of Illinois (same link), and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory [53]. I'm actually glad you put this article on my radar as nuclear pasta seems a delicious (excuse the pun) topic for DYK. Cheers! Altamel ( talk) 02:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Arthur. The other day I was reading one of Collect's comments in the Tea Party Movement drama and I noticed he wrote "nit" when he meant to type "not", so I corrected it. I'm not Collect, or any other named editor involved there. I edit using my IP address lately. (There's more than 71,000 of us living in Centreville, VA.) Thanks. -- 108.45.72.196 ( talk) 23:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Howdy- I noticed that you recently blocked the IP address 99.119.131.212 (talk) citing nonconstructive edits. From my POV, the main problem with the user was his changing wikilinks, which I would have been happy to explain to him. I don't see how that warrants a block, much less a 3-month block, particularly if that user not given any warnings. I was hoping for clarification about a block. I couldn't find an AIV about the user. To me, this IP showed some hope and potential and I just want to make sure he is getting his full fill. Thanks. Have a good one. PrairieKid ( talk) 15:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at 9/11 Truth movement shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. — TySoltaur ( talk) 19:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Why did you remove the link to the wiki of Svante Arrhenius? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Polar_amplification&diff=568894679&oldid=568855544 Prokaryotes ( talk) 09:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be making incredible assumptions of bad faith, i.e. [54]. Those are legit edits, and even if it were made by a sock, it should remain in the encyclopedia. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect, how on earth is it "disputed" that ALEC is a US conservative organization? I included several reputable sources for that. "Conservative" isn't slander; it's a meaningful term that is well defined in political science and adopted by conservatives. ALEC is a self-described organization of "conservative state lawmakers" that favors "conservative public policy solutions". Here's another recent reference from a long-time ally of ALEC, the Heartland Institute, talking about " Conservative state legislators gathering earlier this month at the American Legislative Exchange Council’s annual meeting."
Here's a reference from the LA Times. Here's one from NPR. Here's Reuters. Here's the [ http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/04/conservative_group_denies_it_m.html Here's the Idaho Statesman.
And this isn't some recent fad. Here's a 1993 reference from the Washington Post. Here's a 1992 reference from the Denver Post. Here's a 1987 reference from the Spokane Chronicle.
It sounds like you're inserting your personal point of view to veto reliable, authoritative sources. -- The Cunctator ( talk) 20:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I revived a part of your comment that got overwritten by a later editor. Unfortunately this topic-area is a bit far for me to be able to comment on the substance:( DMacks ( talk) 06:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Help build the Wikipedia community in Southern California at " Come Edit Wikipedia!" presented by the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, August 31st, 2013 from 1-5pm. Drop in for some lively editing and conversation! Plus, it's a library, so there are plenty of sources. -- Olegkagan ( talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 01:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, I can't figure out why Newitz should not be wikilinked? – S. Rich ( talk) 04:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Harassing an administrator?. Thank you. — Guy Macon ( talk) 13:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Arthur. In case you missed it, left a request for you here. Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic ( talk) 11:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Over at Promised Land (2012 film) I reverted the IP sock I mentioned at ANI, but the history of that page now says that I was reverting two editors with usernames, not one IP editor. I know that they were IP edits when i reverted them; the "Undid revision 570485428 by 99.119.130.219" is auto-generated.
I was under the impression that the page history (other than revdels) was not changeable. was I wrong? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Now. WP:Echo probably reports, to the respective editors, that you reverted 6 and 8, even though you were undoing 4 and your edit summary demonstrates that you were undoing 4. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
As per your request, you can now explain why this study is not legitimate /info/en/?search=Talk:Effects_of_climate_change_on_humans#Removal_of_study_on_violence Prokaryotes ( talk) 12:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
For your tireless maintenance of difficult topics. bobrayner ( talk) 10:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC) |
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Yes, sometimes experienced admins need help, also.
Is there a bot I could use to revert all edits of an editor, preferably with edit summary "reverting sock of blocked editor"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
importScript( 'User:John254/mass_rollback.js' );
to your
Special:MyPage/common.js and it should be available. To use it: Select the "rollback all" tab when viewing a user's contributions history will open all rollback links displayed there. (Use with caution).importScript( "User:Kangaroopower/MRollback.js" );
to your
Special:MyPage/common.js and it should be available (after a
refresh of course).
Technical 13 (
talk) 13:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, the bug should be fixed now. Technical's whipping up a nice looking interface as well, so if you stick with the script, it'll start looking much better ;). Best, -- Kangaroo powah 05:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
AR, you forgot to sign the proposal you posted. I'll leave it to you to add it on. 99.192.77.211 ( talk) 13:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, In the template for this block notice, which I think you devised, I suggest you add some text that new instances of evasion and deemed to reset the clock for the other blocks, whatever the server says about expiration times. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
User talk:99.54.138.81, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:99.54.138.81 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:99.54.138.81 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Storm Content 18:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
121.58.224.85 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) this ip is running a bot program that is changing massive numbers of the heading sections for year-in dates and countries - FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP HIM IMMEDIATELY!-- 68.231.15.56 ( talk) 22:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I've opened an RfC regarding a discussion that you were involved in. [55] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 00:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
An arbitration case, in which you were named as party, has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
Pages related to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions. This sanction supersedes the existing community sanctions.
The current community sanctions are lifted.
Goethean ( talk · contribs), North8000 ( talk · contribs), Malke 2010 ( talk · contribs), Xenophrenic ( talk · contribs), Arthur Rubin ( talk · contribs), Ubikwit ( talk · contribs), Phoenix and Winslow ( talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.
Collect ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This topic ban will expire after six months from the date this case is closed on.
Xenophrenic ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Collect ( talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
Snowded ( talk · contribs) and Phoenix and Winslow ( talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor. Collect ( talk) 12:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I was serious about being persuadable in specific instances. If you are having problems with an individual sockpuppeteer, lay out a specific case (probably at WP:AN) and people may choose to modify the topic ban. There's big difference between modifying an individual topic ban and modifying all topic bans going forward.— Kww( talk) 14:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, is it really the case that the names of redirects should be bolded in the lede? I hadn't seen that before, and MOS:BOLDTITLE only refers to "alternative titles" - WOPR is just the name of a unique character that redirects to the film it appears in. The same goes for David Lightman, but it would seem odd to bold that as well. Is there a line of policy or precedent I'm missing? -- McGeddon ( talk) 17:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I was wondering why you removed the wikilink here? It seemed like a useful addition. Thanks. -- Odie5533 ( talk) 17:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your edit summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_National_Council_Against_Health_Fraud&diff=prev&oldid=572847889
You agree that there was a NOR (SYN) vio about a living person. That alone alone constitutes a BLP vio. Compound that with the whole thing not being verifiable and we had textbook BLP. The offending passage is now gone. Thank you. No point dwelling other than as a matter of policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.216.19 ( talk) 15:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
141.218.36.199 revert michigan kid ip = blocked account = new sock puppet
i guess now he is logging on at his school to attempt to hinder block
this new ip was created just one day ago and is essentially reverting your previous block reverts-- 68.231.15.56 ( talk) 02:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rex_Tillerson&diff=572984164&oldid=572042846
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rex_Tillerson&diff=prev&oldid=573067731
notice that his reason for the wiki edits in the first example is the same -- 68.231.15.56 ( talk) 02:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Could you re-evaluate 99.181.128.8? Since his edits all seem reasonable and good, yet it appears you reverted them automatically. Thanks. Prokaryotes ( talk) 16:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Rubin, could you review the last 20 or so edits from 99.64.170.58? This is a long term problematic editor (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Lysdexia). I'm afraid that there are good edits mixed in with the insanity, and I am unable to parse some of the formula changes in scientific articles. Kuru (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Hello Arthur. I just discovered that you were the third editor to edit my talk page, a long time ago, at the beginning of my career here. You made some very friendly suggestions regarding formatting and other stuff, with a pointer--I don't think I ever properly thanked you for it. In fact, knowing me, if I responded at all I probably did so in asshole mode. If so, my belated apologies, five years--no, six--after the fact. It's that sort of kindness on your part (and that of other editors) that countered my habitual antagonism and kept me going here and, at some disastrous point, made me believe in the project. I salute you. Drmies ( talk) 04:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Arthur, hope you don't mind my reaching out to you. I was wondering if you'd interested in reviewing a new draft I've prepared for the Climate Reality Project article. It looks like you haven't worked on the article in nearly a year, but you still appear to be the editor who's been most involved with the page, so I thought you might have a better understanding of the subject than other editors.
I'm asking for editors to review this draft because I've researched and written it on behalf of the organization. Because of my COI with the topic I won't make any changes to the article myself. This means that I am also looking for an editor to replace the current version with this revised draft after we've reached an agreement on the changes that should be made.
Since you last worked on the article it has been expanded and reorganized, however it has not really improved. I have several concerns with the current version: the article is supported almost entirely by primary sources and doesn't provide an adequate summary of the organization's foundation and operations, but focuses mostly on their initiatives. I've aimed to address these issues in my draft as well as to update the page so it is current.
If you think this is something you could help with I'd really appreciate it. I've explained these issues in more detail on the Talk page and have linked to my draft from there. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon ( Talk · COI) 15:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
198.108.141.254 revert michigan kid ip = blocked account = new sock puppet
i guess now he is logging on at his school to attempt to hinder block
this new ip was created just one day ago and is essentially reverting your previous block reverts-- 68.231.15.56 ( talk) 23:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Someone not using his real name ( talk) 05:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, the recent edit history on the article Christopher Langan and discussion among other editors on the article's talk page both suggest the need for a second opinion on some recent edits that have been reverted, and some concerns about content raised on the talk page. Thanks. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 23:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear Arthur Rubin, I refer to your cover note here. I am not clued up about the technicalities here, and I would be grateful for your advice and help. I know there is a banned person about, but I did not actually see how that came into the present matters in the article on Radiative equilibrium. I would grateful if you would perhaps enlighten me a bit about this, perhaps here on your talk page, or on mine? Chjoaygame ( talk) 04:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.
Please see Talk:Isaac_Asimov#Jewish_descent. Debresser ( talk) 01:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent visit to the Prometheus page, and your edit revert. During the past month I have been making a thirty-day effort to prepare the Prometheus page for a possible page upgrade. Page oversight there has also been helping to revert the unexpected amount of vandalism while i have been bringing in the upgrade edits. Someone actually wanted to credit Prometheus with the invention of ham sandwiches!
Given your recent visit, and the current upgrade attempt, if you could possibly try to make a top 5 list of things you believe would help the Prometheus wikipage this would be much appreciated. The page is presently at about 2000 on the wiki list of most visited pages and deserves a try at something better than its low page rating. Once again, thanks for your recent visit to the page! LittleIPEditor ( talk) 14:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps Prometheus is not your favorite cup of tea, but do you speak non-Markovian stochastic processes? LittleIPEditor ( talk) 10:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arthur Rubin: The only page related to non-Markovian stochastic processes is likely to be the Martingale page which doesn't go very far. It has been difficult to find someone who knows non-Markovian processes well enough to discuss this topic with. It would be nice to even see what the outline for such a new wiki page would look like.
Separate issue is that I have been trying to find someone who could do a peer review for a Holocaust related wikipage which i would like to nominate for FA status from GA status. It would need someone with a skeptical eye and i did not know if you or someone you might know could offer to do the peer review for the page. LittleIPEditor ( talk) 12:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
The amendment request you were involved with regarding Tea Party movement sanctions has been closed and archived. The Committee clarified that using rollback tools to revert sockpuppets is covered under the ordinary exemptions for topic bans. The original discussion can be viewed here. For the Arbitration Committee, Rs chen 7754 02:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello I was wondering if you could copy a deleted article. The page name is Ambeta and if you could get the source or somehow give me the deleted page thatd be awesome Zhiftuno ( talk) 21:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Arthur Rubin, why do you feel there is no need to have the article on PlanetMath in the see also section and why do you not want the url to be in the external link section? Lotje ( talk) 05:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, just letting you know I reverted your back to the IP's version which added a wikilink I find quite reasonable. If I missed something please feel free to revert me. Cheers. Gaba (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Now can I get a copy of my page please. Thank you _ Xetoprimus ( talk) 15:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The UCR Libraries are hosting three edit-a-thons focusing on their great special collections (science fiction, water resources, the Inland Empire and more) on Oct. 12, 2013, Oct. 26, 2013, and Nov. 23, 2013. Please participate if you can! Details and signup here. All are welcome, new and experienced editors alike! -- phoebe / ( talk to me) 04:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
This is regarding you undoing my edit to Bell's Theorem subsection: Original Bell's Inequality. These edits happened last year but I never followed up. Your comment to undo my edit was "That's just wrong. You seem to be assuming "independence" between A=B and B=C, which is not generally true, even if there hidden variables." So you're telling me it's impossible for A to not equal B and for B to not equal C? Because if that is the case then it should be stated in the article to avoid confusion.
/info/en/?search=Bell%27s_theorem#Original_Bell.27s_inequality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slick023 ( talk • contribs) 13:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems our friend has adopted a strategy of user-space abuse. Compare the talk page for
However, he appears to be propagating
The range blocks we had last year would prevent most of this. I was sorry to see the rangeblocks go away, and am unaware of any collateral damage reports when they were in place. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
you seem like an honest editor, thank you, debate is vital to democracy. 188.221.174.65 ( talk) 18:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you sure that you have reverted to the version of this article that does the best job of citing and summarizing reliable sources? Because a new editor has come to the Teahouse, concerned that their efforts to improve the article have been reverted. Thank you for your attention. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Besides Wikipedia:Purpose, see wp:Audience among others ... 108.73.113.212 ( talk) 23:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the material I added to this article seems pretty straight-forward to me. Those who support the estate tax commonly consider it ridiculously unfair to get rid of this, of all taxes. The whole thing screams rich people protecting rich people, wanting their children to come out on top, and rationalizing why this is all for the greater good. I'll say I was interested to see how closely, but not exactly surprised, that the Alstott article seems to cover all of these points. I notice Rawls is in the first citation. As she later says, "Starting from conditions of equality, if everyone could then agree to make a change, either despite their divergent views and interests and prejudices (this is Ackerman's device) or from a position in which they cannot know their station (this is Rawls's original position), then the substance of their agreement would be worthy of respect." A few paragraphs up: "One familiar device, used in varying forms by different theorists, is to inquire whether citizens debating the issue in some (more-or-less) ideal setting might consent to inequality. Even without entering into the debates over just how thick the veil of ignorance ought to be.... one can imagine a plausible range of solutions, all involving significant (but not confiscatory) taxation of inheritance...." All I did, in the last bit you removed, was to clarify what this argument from the "veil of ignorance" is in fact, most simply, alleging: that people oppose the tax due to vested interests rather than sound philosophy. Of course, many more people can be led to oppose something when you come up with a good phrase, like "death tax," and ask them how they feel about that.
Incidentally, I wonder how you take the first argument under the opposition section. "People should not be punished because they work hard." Is this not silly? If people shouldn't be punished for working hard, how do they support taxing earned income over inheritance? Then we have, "Free market critics of the estate tax also point out that many attempts at validating the estate tax assume the superiority of socialist/collectivist economic models." And then "For example, proponents of the tax commonly argue that 'excess wealth' should be taxed without offering a definition of what 'excess wealth' could possibly mean and why it would be undesirable if procured through legal efforts." This is argument by buzz word! Admittedly I am interested that to the author, and many readers, it seems to be inconceivable that, in any amount or in any context, putting unearned money into one person's hands but not another's, could be "undesirable." I bet a classroom of kids would get it, if we tried it on them. Not that criticism of "excess wealth" is actually a prominent argument. YMMV.
If I'm cynical, I say people oppose the estate tax so strongly exactly because of its manifest fairness. It's a tax that promotes equality of opportunity (not of results), self reliance, earning your own way, the basic connection between wealth and the entitlement to benefit from that wealth that economic conservatives assume in defending the inequality in our system. A tax that makes things more fair than they otherwise would be? That must be stopped! This, I'll acknowledge is "original research," in the sense that I don't care to find someone else who had the same thought.
Apologies for polluting your page here with a bit of chatter, but the truth is I suspect you didn't read the Alstott article very carefully. It isn't anything like an op-ed -- it's a careful analysis of how political lefties approach this topic. Seems quite comprehensive to me, and it certainly covers the material I included. Not that it bothers me too much if you delete a bit. I seem to be here for catharsis, mainly, if you'll please not use that against me. 67.168.11.194 ( talk) 04:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I know it was not your intention to create a controversy, but I went and looked at the links in the restored version. Virtually none count as reliable sources under BLP, and especially BLPCRIME, I feel. They are mostly court documents, news reports about the court case that are one-time events, and market wire pr releases. The effect is to add up to an attack page. So instead of replacing the prod, I tagged it for CSD as an attack page. There was also some discussion at the BLP noticeboard about this page: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Robert_N._Rooks. Thanks. -- Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arthur - I noticed that you removed the statement(?) from the user:99.181.131.235 from my talk page, and blocked him for three months. I'm curious as to why all this happened. I didn't see any history of vandalism, and I just saw a statement from him to me requesting help. Please let me know - take care... Dinkytown talk 08:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
A discussion you may be interested in is this RFC, a proposal to make the second comma in a date/place optional. United States Man ( talk) 04:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Yesterday, you posted on my Talkpage a warning for violation of the three-revert rule. Yet I notice that in your own edit history shows far greater number of reversions during a recent 24-hour period. I get the impression, perhaps mistaken, that you regularly—at least lately—exceed three reversions per such period. Please, will you clarify to me what how either I am mistaken about this or what qualifies this activity of yours ? — Occurring ( talk) 20:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to be belligerent, but I honestly don't see the attack. Was it me calling it a game? Tarc was doing an 'experiment' to 'prove a point' and even stated it's 'been fun to pretend' and characterized the act as a 'schtick' done to 'push peoples buttons'. I don't think it is a far cry to call that playing a game.
As for the conclusion, while mine doesn't match his, I think its relevant because I'm saying he argued a point he didn't agree with, but was capable of doing so without being offensive. Something several other participants failed to do. So again, I'm not seeing the attack as it specifically states he wasn't being, as I said, a raving hateball.
If you still think its an attack, I understand but disagree. But did I at least get why, or am I still not seeing it? 204.101.237.139 ( talk) 16:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Re https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pythagorean_triple&diff=next&oldid=579416318 -- maybe you meant to undo one of the two earlier edits of FJackson? -- JBL ( talk) 00:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I am not a Vandalizer please stop reverting valid content and making false accusations
Edit: my mistake I do not think you were talking about me
sorry for the misunderstanding if there was one — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Editguy111 (
talk •
contribs)
yeah the sources are there stop reverting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editguy111 ( talk • contribs) 15:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I have opened a new RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates for further discussion. — sroc 💬 08:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Arthur, would you please block Special:Contributions/178.148.130.96 for expiry set of five months, because he/she did vandalism especially unexplained or reverted unsourced music genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.178.245 ( talk) 00:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
No problems about the category removal at Burzynski Clinic, and thank you for your interest in the topic!
Have a great day!
— Cirt ( talk) 22:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I notice you recently reverted an edit to remove an important caveat that appears in the source from the article. Articles should not really say more than the source. grateful if you could explain the revertion on talk. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.196.6 ( talk) 16:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 74 Runs may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 00:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sachin the maestro may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 00:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I am currently working on an article about the political cartoonist Paul Conrad. Whenever I work on a topic, I always check to make sure the subject is disambiguated. Today, I found that Paul Conrad (mathematician) is a possible article title. I have not heard of him, so I am not sure it is notable, but he is listed in the American Men & Women of Science. He lived from 1921-2006 and worked at the University of Kansas on ordered algebraic systems and group theory. Viriditas ( talk) 03:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Your question doesn't say why I should do it. © Tbhotch ™ ( en-2.5). 01:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Didn't know you found talkback's annoying; I assumed you were just removing them because you had seen them. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, I have no interest in the subject of Plasma cosmology, but a newbie is trying to delete large portions of the article. I have commented on the talk page and left warnings on their talk page. -- Brangifer ( talk) 01:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
At WT:MOS#Why "unspaced" em dashes?, could you elaborate on the “different grammatical meaning” that you think spaced en dashes have? No one there seems to be aware of it. Thanks. — Frungi ( talk) 18:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Judaean preserves more value of antiquity and is more contextually accurate Jewish is a modern ethnic why do you disagree with these valid facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editguy111 ( talk • contribs) 08:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
they are not the same thing I have already gone over that the Romans called the land of Canaan as Judaea and called its inhabitants Judaeans and they later annexed Judaea Lebanon and Syria into one big province called
Syria Palaestina where the name Palestine comes from please revert it back I will keep trying to revert it as it is more accurate
Editguy111
(talk) —Preceding
undated comment added 08:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I read his comments and his website, and I got A Modest Proposal-like vibe from them. Then again, I also got batshit crazy vibe as well. It's hard to say if he is doing this just to piss people off or if he really is insane. Might be both. Viriditas ( talk) 04:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Arthur. I'm not sure what your intentions were with this request, but I want to make sure you know that asking another editor to make changes in an area where you are topic banned is a fast track to trouble for both you and them, as explained at WP:PROXYING. As far as I can tell, Arzel hasn't acted on this, and hopefully he won't. If he doesn't act and I don't see any more such requests from you, I will let the matter rest with this reminder. -- RL0919 ( talk) 21:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
As I don't want to drag the discussion off-topic, I'll post a comment I nearly put there here.
Arthur, I'm very much not trying to get you blocked; I'm warning you off so that you don't get blocked. But if you ignore the repeated warnings from myself, User:MrX, User:RL0919 and others, this isn't going to end well. MrX has already mentioned WP:AE, and to be fair, he's not wrong to do so.
Please work with us to prevent a completely avoidable block. You don't even have to acknowledge guilt. Just admit that your edits to Koch-related articles (especially Political activities of the Koch brothers) have been considered by some to be skirting the edge of your topic ban, so you're voluntarily avoiding those articles just to prevent the appearance of violation. This reasonable response will get all the pressure off you.
Will you do this? MilesMoney ( talk) 05:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
You are the subject of an ARBCOM arbitration enforcement request here: WP:AE#Arthur Rubin. - Mr X 16:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Arthur. I've noticed that you are a mathematician and aerospace engineer. Having these qualifications, I thought you could clarify some aspects concerning spiral trajectories of orbital bodies like satelites and the requested force laws that could allow spiral trajectories, aspects which are missing from articles like Cotes spirals which says these spirals are trajectories for moving in a inverse-cube central force. That article has some steps missing in the demonstration that could be clarified. Thanks for your answer-- 188.26.22.131 ( talk) 10:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
If you are a member of one or more of the IEEE technical societies, you may wish to identify yourself as such on Wikipedia. I’ve created Wikipedian categories for each of the 38 IEEE technical societies. The new Template:User IEEE member creates a userbox identifying the society and your membership grade and includes your user page in the relevant Wikipedian category. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a note. Yours aye, Buaidh 17:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC) — IEEE Life Member
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#En dash vs. "and" for multi-state metro areas. Herostratus ( talk) 18:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
All the best. — Unforgettableid ( talk) 01:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I fell asleep. As long as we're on the topic, do you think that 22nd century should swallow all those tiny decade articles? Also, are you saying you want me to remove "Centuries in the future" and "years in the future" Serendi pod ous 18:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.
Hello. I've become increasingly concerned about edits that MorningGlory3 is making to The Courage to Heal, which seem to be having the effect of portraying the book in an overly-favorable way. If you could review what has happened at the article recently and express a view of it, that would be helpful. I'm asking you as you have edited the article in the past. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 19:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, FYI I addressed a thread to you and VSmith at the other's talk page here. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Brian Josephson editing on Water Memory. Thank you.
I told you I would no longer defend your actions, but if you had taken SimpsonDG's hint and given up on the proxy editing, I would have turned the other way. As it stands, I've reported you to WP:ANI. Below is your formal notification template:
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MilesMoney ( talk) 09:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Here is the ANI thread's full pinpoint link. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 10:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Rubin, in defending you, Johnuniq conceded:
If you ignore the spelling/grammar error, I think you'll find another polite suggestion that you should stop evading the block. MilesMoney ( talk) 11:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I just noted in my watchlist your apparently exhaustive efforts to reign in the IP sock factory. I am, quite simply, in utter awe, Arthur. I don't know much approbation you get from Wikipedians, but I can state unequivocally that it simply is nowhere near enough. Tracking a creep over two years would make me lose all my faith in humanity, and yet, you still appear to be generous, articulate and detail-oriented. Thank you ever so much for helping to make Wikipedia a place where I can edit with a minimum of interaction with sock-puppets. You are a mensch, sir. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 18:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
If anyone monitors this, please feel free to comment on fixes. Otherwise, I'll get back to it when my block expires. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
As a clarification, I am not asking other editors to make these changes. As noted below in Other errors#3, I really am asking for comments, not for others to make these changes. (And the error in Other errors#2 is too complicated for someone not familiar with article to fix it.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
..., namely the axiom of choice!
Do you recall that I had a proposal for an article on the equivalence of the existence of group structure on all nonempty sets and AC a year or so ago?
I didn't know what to do with it, toss it or do something else. So, somewhat against your advice, I submitted it to "Articles for Creation". To my surprise it was accepted within a couple of hours, so here it is. There are a couple of issues with references. I posted a question over at Carl since you were on "vacation". Could you have a look? Best regards, YohanN7 ( talk) 14:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey - I'm still learning about Wikipedia, and I hope you can help me with something. I see that you removed dates on section headings for the Institute for Justice talk page. I recently edited the page, adding about 50 references, changing the tone to reflect NPV, adding information, etc. The new article is probably 95% new material. The first several topics on the talk page refer to the older version of the article. Is it possible to archive those topics? Would it be a good idea to do so? Or is it best practice to leave the older topics in place? Thanks! James Cage ( talk) 16:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
All the best. — Unforgettableid ( talk) 21:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)