WIKIPEDIA:REQUESTS FOR ARBITRATION RKTECT EVIDENCE

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Egil

I regret that I have not used the exact time linear format of evidence. The following material has been collected in the format used here over a long period, and I hope that the arbitrators can find it acceptable as evidence as presented.

Consensus as to unsuitability for Wikipedia, based on VfD

Evidence to show that the VfD discussions for articles created by rktect indicates that a consensus that the material submitted by rktect is largely unsuitable for Wikipedia exists.

The content of all VfD discussions of articles created by rktect is presented as evidence, as well as the vote count, per August 30th. The votes are shown as (keep/delete). The votes of egil and rktect, being the primary parties in the arbitration, have not been counted. Redirect votes in the sense that the original content should be removed, have been counted as delete.

For Mille passus there was one vote "Merge with Pseudoscientific metrology" that has not been counted since it can be interpreted in either direction.

It can also be noted that initial VfD submission has been made by many different editors.

Consensus in revertions

Evidence to show that consensus is indicated by the number of other Wikipedians reverting significant material submitted by rktect:

This list is far from exhaustive.

Claims made in articles

The number of lines contributed by rktect is overwhelming. Although many of the contributions are repeats and arguments ad nauseam, it would be a major undertaking to research each and every claim for accuracy. The following is only a small selection.

Since the ideas presented by rktect in most cases seems to be of his own origin, it is difficult to find good sources that directly states they are false. It is more a question of asking for reliable sources that supports rktects ideas. Which never seem to materialize - other than irrelevant or marginally relevant material by the bucket, material from dubious sources (like metrum.org), in addition to rktects own interpretation of often primary sources, like Herodotus (e.g. [24]).

Miles

Miles and stadia have been intended to be unit divisions of a degree of the Earth's great circle circumference since they were first defined as standards of measure by the rope stretchers of Mesopotamia and Egypt. (From Mile [25])

This seems to be a central point in rktects argumentation, one upon which he seems to build many of his claims. The source of these thoughts is probably the unpublished writings of Livio Catullo Stecchini (found at http://www.metrum.org/ )

Stating that the measurements of length of these ancient civilizations are derived as divisions of the degree, implies that these civiliations must have known the circumference of the Earth to a high degree of accuracy at the time these units were defined, perhaps around 3000 BC. There is no historic evidence whatsoever to substantiate this. See [26]. It was not untill the 17th century that the circumference of the Earth was measured with sufficient accuracy that it could be used as basis for a measure of length [27]. Gabriel Mouton proposed the first such system in 1670, but even at that time the measurement was perhaps 10% in error. Jean Picard did much more accurate measurements only few years later.

Furthermore, the entire concept of a degree as a unit for angle measurement was not known by the ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations, anyhow.

Greek mile

The Greek Milos or Milion of 4800 pous (From Mile [28])

The Greek milion is simply the name of a Roman mile, it is not a Greek unit of measure at all. The ancient Greeks predominantly used the stadion, and sometimes the schoinos. Where rktect got milos from, is unknown. User:Ctenophore established that the only known noun milos in Greek is in the meaning "flower of the yew tree" [29].

Although is was firmly established there were no milos unit, rktect remained unconvinced, and suggested the alternative spelling mylios [30]:

1.8 mylios / 2.8 kilometrai. olimpinės mylios (1988 m)

One can only assume that this was found via a web search engine, [31] or similar, and rktect had presumably failed to notice that his hits were in the Lithuanian language, not Greek at all! As is suggested by the .lt domain name.

Needless to say, the claims with regards to the Greek (or was it Lithuanian) unit of measure milos, is nothing but patent nonsense.

Greek mile, again

The word Milion is the Roman term for the Greek Milos and is mentioned in Mathew 5. (From Milion, now deleted by VfD, a copy is retained in [32]; also in Mile [33])

We have established that the Greek Milos is a fantasy. But at some point after the Romans defined their mile, the Greek did get a term for it, which is in fact milion [34]. It is not the other way around, but that did not prevent rktect from creating an article presenting much information about this claimed Greek unit of measure. No other claim nor mention of such a unit has been found, and no cite has been provided by user rktect.

In the VfD for the Milion article [35] (note also how edits of other persons are disturbed), rktect claimed evidence with regards to the Greek mile, in form of a web page [36]. He fails to understand (or inform) that the web page is in fact in the Lithuanian language [37], and has nothing to do with Greek, nor the supposed Greek mile. Confusing Lithuanian with Greek, two completely different languages, puts rktect claims to a high level of knowledge of linguistics, and claims to having made very amazing linguistic discoveries [38] [39] even more clearly in the patent nonsense category.

Scottish miles

* 1 Milliare Scotia in 1503 = 1600 elle of 1616.8 mm = 3200 pous = 2560 remen

* 1 Milliare Scotia in 1595 = 5 minutes of arc of the great circle of the earth = 9.25 km (From Mile [40])

These definitions are quite typical of the claims. Based on an assumption that an Egyptian remen is directly based on the circumference of the Earth, and inspired by a drawing on a 16th century map of Scotland [41] [42] rktect draws the conclusion that A Scotish Mile based on a Roman Milliare with an Egyptian Royal Cubit in its scale composed according to the Greek Orders of Architecture as Ionic cornice and frieze. [43]. The Scotish mile was in no way given by the Earths great circle nor by the Egyptian remen in 1595, and these definitions are meaningless.

The "geograhic" atur

Ten itrw would be 700 stadia of 300 royal cubits or 1 degree of the earths great circle. The Romans and Greeks appreciated the concept. If a distance of 75 Roman miles could be covered by a river barge or an army could march an equivalent distance of ten atur in ten hours then that made navigation a little easier. (From Itrw [44])

In addition to the wrong assumption that ancient Roman, Greek and Egyptian measures were derived from the degree, this is pure fantasy. Based on concepts that we today take for granted, they make look innocent enough, but the fact of the matter is that in ancient times, altough the concepts of latitude and longitude were known, and latitude was used extensively for navigation, there were no maps where degrees, as in 1/360 sections of the unit circle, were indicated. This concept was developed much later.

Number magic

If you have ever wondered why there are exactly twice as many seconds in a century as there are inches in the circumference of the earths great circle then it may have occured to you that both time and the division of a circle into degrees of arc are sexigesimal in nature and probably originated in a culture that appreciated factor rich integrals. (From Itrw [45])

This is typical statement taken from the more bizarre fractions of the anti-metric movement, to show the superiority of the Imperial inch over the metric system. It is of course pure speculation and numerology, and has no meaning unless evidence can be found that this is the way the inch was originally defined!

I cannot use this as there is no diff pointing to an edit by Rktect Fred Bauder 19:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Now added -- Egil 19:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Eratosthostenes

If his results were acurate his stadia would have measured 158.57 m. As it happens this works out to 302 Egyptian royal cubits.

The Egyptians had a very well documented standard of measure called the khet which was 100 royal cubits in length and was the side of an 3ht or field called a st3t. In Greek and Roman times the Egyptian fields were generally farmed in clusters of three with one left fallow, one plowed and sowed in grain and another planted in hay for the plow animal.

This means the Egyptians clusters of fields would have been surveyed by a standard of 300 royal cubits that Eratosthenes could have found useful in his work. (From Eratosthenes [46])

Instead of accepting the method and result of Erathosthenes, which is pretty well documented, rktect commits a historian's fallacy, and under the assumption that the circumference of the Earth was know to todays accuracy, he simply invents his own chain of speculation on how there must have been a local Egyptian stadium consisting of the magic number of 300 royal cubits, which Eratosthenes must have used. Cites for these theories of rktect have never been provided. (For the conventional knowledge on this matter, see especially [47], but also [48], chapter Eratosthenes' measurement).

The atur

The Egyptian value for the itrw or river journey was 21,000 royal cubits. (from khet [49])

Most reliable sources state the atur (or itrw) is 20,000 royal cubits. There is uncertainty, and a value of 12,000 royal cubits is also seen (also linked to the Greek schoinos). Anyway, the defintion of 21,000 seems to have been fabricated to support the claims about Eratosthenes. No cites has been provided to support the figure of 21,000 nor the connection to the circumference of the Earth.

I cannot use this evidence as there is no diff pointing to an edit by Rktect Fred Bauder 19:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Fixed -- Egil 20:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Mouton, the abott

In 1670 Abbe Mouton suggested a primary length standard
equal to 1 minute of arc on a great circle of the earth.
For this basic length Mouton offered the name milliare.
This was to be subdivided by seven sub units with each one
to be 1/10 the length of the one preceeding or
Milliare = 1 minute of arc = 36524 English feet = 1.11 km
Centuria =.1 minute of arc = 3652.4 English feet = .111 km
Decuria = .01 minutes of arc = 365.24 English feet = 111.1 m
Virga = .001 minutes of arc = 36.524 English feet =11.1 m
Virgula = .0001 minutes of arc = 3.6524 English feet = 1.11 m (From Pes, deleted by VfD. A copy is retained in [50].)

(The original bullet points and verse form is retained). Here, it is presumably referred to Gabriel Mouton, an abbot (abbot in French is abbé, which seems to be the explanation of rktects confusion about the name) who proposed the first system of measurement based on the size of Earth. Moutons definition of a milliare is a minute of arc, which by modern definition would be a nautical mile, but by the knowledge in 1670 probably was around 2.04 km, which makes a virgula 20.4 cm. Where rktect gets his figures from, is unknown: centuria and decuria seems to have exactly the same length by metric measure! Presumably, this can be nothing but original research.

Aristotle

The Degree of Aristotle

1 Degree = 1/360 of 400,000 stadia = 1111.1 stadia = 111km
10 stadions = 1 km
1 stadion = 100 m = 300 pous of 333.3 mm
111 km divided into 600 stadions of 600 pous of 308.4 mm = 185 m (From Rope stretchers [51])

Again, to prove the knowledge of the exact circumference of the Earth throughout the times, it seems some adjustments needs to be made. For instance to the value of the stadion used by Aristotle: This time, it is curiously enough defined as exactly 100 meters! Of course, to make a sensible foot, rktect cannot use the known Greek division factor of 600, and must resort to 300, and then invent a Greek pous of 333.3 mm. In the same article there are also similar claims for different feet and stadia by Posidonius, Marinus, Ptolemy and so on, none of which exists in well known sources. No indication whatsoever exists in any known source that the Greek at the time of Aristotles used a stadion divided in 300 feet. And typical values for various Greek stadions is in the range between 177 and 200 meters, some are even shorter, but never nowhere near 100 meters [52].

Riccioli

Based on the measurements of the size of the Earth conducted by Riccioli of Bologna (at 375,000 Roman pes, or 600 stadia of 625 pes to the degree), Mouton proposed a decimal system of measurement based on the circumference of the Earth (From Gabriel Mouton [53])

The original statement was: Based on the measurements of the size of the Earth conducted by Riccioli of Bologna (at 321,815 Bologna feet to the degree), Mouton proposed a decimal system of measurement based on the circumference of the Earth. This was in accordance to all references in the article (e.g. [54]). But rktect changed this, with no other foundation evident than that it suited his arguments about the knowledge of the size of the Earth and of the interconnectedness of all systems of measurement.

The "English cubit"

The English cubit is 19.2", and can be found as the diamond on the Stanley Tapemeasure (From English unit [55])

While all reliable sources says that the black diamonds found on many US carpenters tape measures are for dividing 8 feet in five ( [56], also [57], see diamond), rktect claims it as proof of an English cubit!

Lack of understanding of the concept of writing an encyclopedia

When the articles of rktect were presented to VfD, it seems he sees Wikipedia more like a forum for free speech for everything, and refers to deletion of articles as burning of books [58].

He also seem to lack an understanding of the required style for encyclopedic articles, even after now having been here for two months and made thousands of edits, as can be shown by the following examples:

Articles created by rktect, such as List of revenues and Khet (current examples)
All articles of rktect deleted under VfD (see list of VfD articles above)
Other: [59] [60]

Bad faith

A pattern of bad faith edits can be shown by:

Rktect created new articles with essentially the same content that has been deleted by VfDs (can be established by comparing articles deleted by VfD to which I do not have access)
Rktect submitted this article to VfD (presumably as a revenge attack)
Rktect distorted my request for assistance (for example [61], section "Pseudoscientific attack")
Rktect has used plain vandalism as a form of revenge against other editors [62] [63] [64]
Rktect submitted an entire article that turned out to be a copyright violation [65]
Rktect violated the 3RR [66]
Rktect distorted discussions, e.g. [67] [68] [69] [70]
Rktect removed valid VfD tags several times, e.g. [71] [72].
Rktect removed content of existing articles, carefully built up over time, often with cites, and replaced with his own content, e.g.:

Rktect removed disputed tags for his own material without consensus [78] [79] [80]
Over a long period, rktect marked all his edits, however large, as minor. [81]
Later, rktect has used edit comments that are designed to be misleading e.g.:

added some links [82]
rv to better version [83]
restored references [84]
reduced set of references [85]

Lately, actively using sockpuppet User:Federal Street as a disguise. (See evidence presented by Carnildo, below). Additional proof of the connection between 'rktect' and 'Federal Street' will be provided on request, by email since it reveals the identity of rktect.

Trolling?

Although evidence is hard to produce, the arbitrators should consider if this is all a massive trolling attack. In this one solitary case, rktect shows he is in fact fully capable of disciplined debate: [86]. He also admits using Wikipedia for his own experiments, mentioning a page "Sos" he created to this purpose [87]. Rktect may also be using Wikipedia as a tool in his resistance against Metrication, showing the superiority of the traditional measures (e.g. [88], second half).

Attempts at compromise

Initially, although it was quite obvious that the material submitted by rktect was not suitable for an encyclopedia as-is, I started with the attitude that at least some of it could be used [89]. On probing claim after claim, however, it became evident that this was not the case. Discussions with rktect proved futile. I did not find rktects own ideas notable enough to be mentioned, but the alternative ideas of Stecchini and others, which seem to have created sufficient interest to be notable, have been collected in the article comparative metrology.

On the initiative of User:Kenwarren, I entered a mediation with rktect [90], with communication going through the mediator User:Improv by email. It was agreed on a truce when the mediation started, with respect to the disputed pages modified and created by rktect. The truce never became anything but unilateral, and rktect continued his edits at the same pace, accusing me of engaging other editors to act on my behalf (see below). The mediation was soon aborted by rktect. If there is an interest, I can provide the emails, provided the mediator and rktect gives their consent.

Personal attacks

Examples are:

Notoris vandal Egil (sic) [91]
working together to destroy Wikipedia content in any way possible [92]
The article Super Ekgdz, available at [93] (could be classified as BJAODN, but the accusations of a conspiracy were real enough [94])
Rktect has made accusations of me being behind a conspiracy against him [95] [96].

I can only say that these accusations are totally unfounded. Some discussions with fellow editors relating to the contributions of rktect have taken place, but only in the normal and acceptable sense. With the exceptions of some emails exchanged with User:Kenwarren, and emails exchanged with the mediator and rktect as part of the mediation, the entire extent of my communication with other editors on this matter is open for all to see and judge via Special:Contributions/Egil. As far as I can see, in addition to simple notes informing about the arbitration, it consists of the following:

The emails are private, but if the arbitrators wants to review them, that can be arranged, provided I get consent from the other parties of the email exchanges.

Evidence presented by { Rktect 03:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)}

<22> <July>

<21:11, July 22, 2005 >
- What happened.
  - I began contributing to Wikipedia on Ancient weights and measures, the Mesopotamian system

<21:16, July 22, 2005 >
- What happened.
  - I contributed to Wikipedia on Ancient weights and measures, the Egyptian system
<12:27, August 5, 2005 >
- What happened.
  - I contributed to Wikipedia on Medieval weights and measures

<5> <August>

<15:11, August 5, 2005 >
- What happened.
  - Egil began systematically removing all my contributions to Wikipedia by reverting pages, marking 30 some odd pages for deletion, and enlisting others to work with him to this end.

<9> <August>

<06:32, August 9, 2005 (>
- What happened.
  - Ken Warren brokered a conditional agreement to mediation based on Egil ceasing his attacks.

<11> <August>

<06:21, August 11, 2005 >
- What happened.
  - User Improv attempted to mediate but Egil continued to encourage others to attack articles which they did. Consequently the mediation fell through.

<29> <August>

<08:45, August 29, 2005 >
- What happened.
  - Egil began this arbitration and continued to attack my contributions charging they were "original research" and "pseudoscience". I responded by contributing a long list of references and cites answering all disputed facts with main stream references and quotations.

You can cut this off when you have had your fill. Egil lacks some basic knowledge about measures and he lacks the ability to research them and to provide accurate cites and references in support of his position. I have provided many more cites and references than most people care to read. That doesn't make my contributions "original research" or "pseudoscience".

specific disputes

For example:

Egil says "The geographical ~7.5 km mile, land and sea, is the brainchild of Ole Rømer - the Prussian king later adopting it. "

" I said Ole Roemer invented it more than 1500 years after the Romans did Rktect 23:56, September 3, 2005 (UTC)"

Actually the Romans weren't the first to come up with "geocommensurate standards" Herodotus tells us:

": VI. Further, the length of the seacoast of Egypt itself is sixty “schoeni” --of Egypt, that is, as we judge it to be, reaching from the Plinthinete gulf to the Serbonian marsh, which is under the Casian mountain--between these there is this length of sixty schoeni. [2] Men that have scant land measure by feet; those that have more, by miles; those that have much land, by parasangs; and those who have great abundance of it, by schoeni. [3] The parasang is three and three quarters miles, and the schoenus, which is an Egyptian measure, is twice that.

VI. autis de autês esti Aiguptou mêkos to para thalassan hexêkonta schoinoi, kata hêmeis diaireomen einai Aigupton apo tou Plinthinêteô kolpou mechri Serbônidos* limnês, par' hên to Kasion oros teinei: tautês ôn apo hoi hexêkonta schoinoi eisi. [2] hosoi men gar geôpeinai eisi anthrôpôn, orguiêisi memetrêkasi tên chôrên, hosoi de hêsson geôpeinai, stadioisi, hoi de pollên echousi, parasangêisi, hoi de aphthonon liên, schoinoisi. [3] dunatai de ho parasangês triêkonta stadia, ho de schoinos, metron eon Aiguption, hexêkonta stadia."

IX. From Heliopolis to Thebes is nine days' journey by river, and the distance is six hundred and eight miles, or eighty-one schoeni. [2] This, then, is a full statement of all the distances in Egypt: the seaboard is four hundred and fifty miles long; and I will now declare the distance inland from the sea to Thebes : it is seven hundred and sixty-five miles. And between Thebes and the city called Elephantine there are two hundred and twenty-five miles.

81 schoeni = 608 miles

1 schoeni = 7.5miles = 1/10 degree = 11.1 km

1 Parasang = 30 furlongs

Ole Roemer, Gabriel Mouton and others were recycling the standards of the Greeks and Romans.

Let's go to (c 90-168 AD) Ptolomy "The Geography" (listed under the references below) Book I Chapter three is entitled "How from measuring the stadia of any given distance, although not on the same meridian, it may be determined how many stadia there are in the circumference of the earth and vice versa." Ptolomy is only one of a long line of Greeks going back to Herodotus writing half a milenia earlier (c 484-c425 BC) who say the same thing.

Leaving off the archaeological and lingusistic references these are what I had posted by August 9. Subsequently I put them in proper Wikipedia format.

Classical references

The Ten Books on Architecture Vitruvius

The Geography Claudias Ptolemy

The History of Herodotus

Mathematical and mensurational references

The Historical Roots of Elementary MathematicsLucas N. h. Bunt, Phillip S.Jones, Jack D. Bedient

The World of Measurements H Arthur Klein

Norman's Parrallel of the Orders of Architecture R. A. Cordingley

Mesopotamian references

The Ancient Near East William H McNeil and Jean W Sedlar

The Ancient Near East James B. Pritchard

Bahrain through the Ages, Shaika Haya Ali Al Khalifa and Michael Rice

Prehistory and Protohistory of the Arabian Peninsula Dr. Muhammed Abdul Nayeem

Mesopotamia 10 The Sumerian Language Marie-Loise Thomsen

Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East" Michael Roaf

Egyptian references

Gardiner Egyptian Grammar § 266 for names of Egyptian units

A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egytian Raymond O Faulkner

Ancient Egyptian Antonio Loprieno

Atlas of Ancient Egypt Baines and Ma'lek

Egypt's Making Michael Rice

Mathematics in the time of the Pharoahs, Gillings, chapter 20.

Ancient Egyptian Construction and Architecture Somers Clarke and R. Englebach

Land Tenure in the Ramesside Period Salley L.D. Katary

Rktect 23:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Egil says "The "Greek Milos" for instance, exists only in Wikipedia. Not good at all. Im fact, I really have not found any documentation of any of these claims. -- Egil 16:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC) Rktect 8/10/05 Ever read the Bible Egil?, Try Matthew 5 reply

Egil is unaware that 1. milion is a Latin word used to describe a Greek Mile 2. The Roman word for mile is Milia passum meaning one thousand paces. 3. Websters lists the etymology as from the Gk. mia chilioi meaning one thousand. 4. Websters also points out its antiquity is pre-historic.

[ Webster's English Dictionary]

mile

Cross references:

1. measure

mile \'mi-(*)l\ n [ME, fr. OE mi-l; akin to OHG mi-la mile; both fr. a

prehisto]ric WGmc word borrowed fr. L milia miles, fr. milia passuum, lit.,

thousands of paces, fr. milia, pl. of mille thousand, perh. fr. a

prehistoric compound whose constituents are akin to Gk mia (fem. of heis

one) and to Gk chilioi thousand, Skt sahasra - more at SAME any of

various units of distance as a unit equal to 5280 feet

NAUTICAL MILE

Spelling variations on mile include mil, mille, milia, milios, mylios, myl, myle, and milion which is used in Mathew 5. Further, though Egil doesn't realize it, Latvian and Lithuanian are considered to preserve antique forms of Greek and even PIE which were probably acquired during the period when baltic amber was first traded to the Greeks in the Chalcolithic. Further we can look at Herodotus in the Original Greek and see the spelling chilioi used for mile, and we can also look at Auli Gellii Noctes Atticae Liber I

XVI. Quod verba istaec Quadrigari ex annali tertio "ibi mille hominum occiditur" non licenter neque de poetarum figura, sed ratione certa et proba grammaticae disciplinae dicta sunt. I. Quadrigarius in tertio annalium ita scripsit: "Ibi occiditur mille hominum." II. "Occiditur", inquit, non "occiduntur". Item Lucilius in tertio satirarum: ad portam mille a porta est; exinde Salernum, "mille" inquit "est" non "mille sunt". III. Varro in XVII. humanarum: "Ad Romuli initium plus mille et centum annorum est." IV. M. Cato in primo originum: "Inde est ferme mille passum." V. M. Cicero in sexta in Antonium: "Itane Ianus medius in L. Antonii clientela est? quis umquam in illo Iano inventus est, qui L. Antonio mille nummum ferret expensum?" VI. In his atque in multis aliis "mille" numero singulari dictum est; VII. neque hoc, ut quidam putant, vetustati concessum est aut per figurarum concinnitatem admissum est, sed sic videtur ratio poscere.

VIII. "Mille"' enim non pro eo ponitur, quod Graece chilioi dicitur, sed quod chilias, et sicuti una chilias et duae chiliades, ita "unum mille" et "duo milia" certa atque directa ratione dicitur.

IX. Quamobrem id quoque recte et probabiliter dici solitum "mille denarium in arca est" et "mille equitum in exercitu est". X. Lucilius autem, praeterquam supra posui, alio quoque in loco id manifestius demonstrat; nam in libro XV. ita dicit: XI. hunc, milli passum qui vicerit atque duobus,Campanus sonipes succussor nullus sequetur maiore in spatio ac diversus videbitur ire; XII. item in libro nono tu milli nummum potes uno quaerere centum; XIII. "milli passum" dixit pro "mille passibus" et "uno milli nummum" pro "unis mille nummis" aperteque ostendit "mille" et vocabulum esse et singulari numero dici eiusque plurativum esse "milia" et casum etiam capere ablativum. XIV. Neque ceteros casus requiri oportet, cum sint alia pleraque vocabula, quae in singulos tantum casus, quaedam etiam, quae in nullum inclinentur. XV. Quapropter nihil iam dubium est, quin M. Cicero in oratione, quam scripsit Pro Milone, ita scriptum reliquerit: "Ante fundum Clodi, quo in fundo propter insanas illas substructiones facile mille hominum versabatur valentium", non "versabantur", quod in libris minus accuratis scriptum est; alia enim ratione "mille homines", alia "mille hominum" dicendum est.

Those are just a couple of the exchanges but to make a long story shorter Egil is wrong when he says Ole Roemer invented thew Geographic Mile, he is wrong when he says Europeans didn't inherit their standards of measure from the Greeks and Romans,

Egil says "The Scotish mile was in no way connected to an Earth great circle in 1595"

": "I do find that 50 of our myles agreeth best of all to 60 Italian miles or a degree,

wherupon I have followed out all the latituds of Scotland."

Cowell speaking of Scotland."

Egil would argue that "There is no evidence whatsoever of a furlong equal to 1/8 of a Roman mile."

": One of the earliest of all tables of English linear mesures,

Richard Arnold's Customs of London, c. 1503,

contains the following sentence ...

The length of a barley corn 3 times make an ynche [inch] and

12 ynches make a fote [foot] and

3 fote make a yerde [yard] and

5 qaters [quarters] of the yerde make an elle.

5 fote make a pace.

125 pace make a furlong

and 8 furlong make an English myle [mile]

Sources:

The World of Measurements, by H. Arthur Klein,

736 pages, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1974, SBN 671215655 "

Despite Herodotus Egil says “there were no maps where degrees as we known them were indicated” The fact is Ptolemy’s maps in "The Geography" use degrees and so does every map that comes along thereafter.

Egil is convinced that Eratosthenes was the first to measure the Earths great circle and that Ole Roemer was the first to use the geographic mile. Both these opinions are given the lie by Herodotus.

Egil has no knowledge of Egyptian measures but disputes with me the value of an itrw for which we once again have Herodotus as the primary source, and Gardiner and Gillings as secondary sources.

Egil disputes that Gabriel Mouton based his proposal for the metric system on the geo-commensurate standards of the Greeks and Romans

In 1670 Abbe Mouton suggested a primary length standard equal to 1 minute of arc on a great circle of the earth. For this basic length Mouton offered the name milliare. This was to be subdivided by seven sub units with each one to be 1/10 the length of the one preceeding or

1 Milliare = 1 minute of arc = 1.85 km
1 Centuria = .1 minute of arc = 185 m
1 Decuria = .01 minutes of arc = 18.5 m
1 Virga = .001 minutes of arc = 1.85 m
1 Virgula = .0001 minutes of arc = 185 mm
1 Decima = .00001 minute of arc = 18.5 mm
1 Centesima = .000001 minute of arc = 1.85 mm
1 Millesima = .0000001 minute of arc = .185 mm

Mouton apparently noted the decimal factors

1 Milliare = 10 stadia of 6000 pous
1 Centuria = 1 Greek stadion of 600 pous
1 Centuria = 1 Roman Stadium of 625 pes
1 Centuria = 1 English furlong of 625 fote
1 Decuria = 10 Greek orquia = 60 pous
1 Virga = 1 Greek orquia or fathom = 6 pous
1 Virgula = 10 Roman digitus = 2 hands
1 Decima = 1 Roman digitus

inherent in earlier sexigesimal systems

Egil says "The fact of the matter is that the chronometer had been invented 14 years before Mouton published his book"

He is wrong there also. The chronometer was invented by Harrison in 1714. In 1764 he invented the marine chronometer. Neither is a seconds pendulum.

Egil objects to this correction

Based on the measurements of the size of the Earth conducted by Riccioli of Bologna (at 375,000 Roman pes, or 600 stadia of 625 pes to the degree), Mouton proposed a decimal system of measurement based on the circumference of the Earth (From Gabriel Mouton)

The original statement was: Based on the measurements of the size of the Earth conducted by Riccioli of Bologna (at 321,815 Bologna feet to the degree), Mouton proposed a decimal system of measurement based on the circumference of the Earth. This was in accordance to all references in the article (e.g. [97]). But rktect changed this to a value, with no other foundation evident than that it suited his arguments about the knowledge of the size of the Earth and of the interconnectedness of all systems of measurement.

Egil seems not to realize that the Bologna foot is a Roman foot. The Roman foot is 296 mm. The Romans counted 75 mila passum or thousands of paces to a degree so 75 x 1000 x 5 = 375,000 pes to a degree by definition.

Egil lacks some basic knowledge about measures and he lacks the ability to research them and to provide accurate cites and references in support of his position. I have provided many more cites and references than most people care to read. That doesn't make my contributions "original research" or "pseudoscience". If you agree I would ask that Egil be asked to use the discussion pages and cease and desist from reverting pages and marking them for deletion and throwing tags all over them with no explanation of why. Rktect 03:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Egil cites me "

The Degree of Aristotle

1 Degree = 1/360 of 400,000 stadia = 1111.1 stadia = 111km

10 stadions = 1 km

1 stadion = 100 m = 300 pous of 333.3 mm

111 km divided into 600 stadions of 600 pous of 308.4 mm = 185 m (From Rope stretchers [46])"

Egil then goes off on a speculative excursion with no basis in fact.

He says " Again, to prove the knowledge of the exact circumference of the Earth throughout the times, some tiny adjustments needs to be made. For instance to the value of the stadion used by Aristotle. This time, it is curiously enough defined as exactly 100 meters! Of course, to make a sensible foot, he cannot use the usual division factor of 600, and must use 300!How a pous can be both 333.2 mm and 308.4 mm at the same time, is unknown. In the same article there are also similar claims for totally different feet and stadia by Posidonius, Marinus, Ptolemy and so on. No indication whatsoever exists that the Greek at the time of Aristotles used a stadion divided in 300 feet nor that any Greek definition of the stadion was nowhere near 100 meters."

This is just sad. If Egil was familiar with the Greeks and their measures I wouldn't have to explain this. He would know that every town had different pous or feet which we broadly categorize as short, median and long. He would possibly even know that 333.3 mm is well referenced in the literature as the side of the volume that contains a bushel. He would also know that each of the Greek mathematicians and geographers who worked on the calculation of the earth worked from essentially the same data but used different stadia. None of that is my original research, its just research that Egil doesn't know anything about yet.

"In the second half of the eighteenth century A.D. a number of French scholars came to the conclusion that ancient linear units of measure were related to the length of the arc of meridian from the equator to the pole. They concluded that all Greek statements about the size of the earth provide the same datum, except that different stadia were employed. Several ancient authors used different figures and different stadia to say what Aristotle says in De Coelo (298B), namely, that the circumference is 400,000 stadia. The scholars of the French Enlightenment were hampered by the lack of modern exact data about the size of the earth. Today I can state that Aristotle counted by a stadium of 300 barley feet (the barley foot is 9/8 of the Roman foot), stadium of 99,881.59 meters; he meant that a great circle is 39,952,636 meters. What Aristotle said is the same as was said by the romans when they counted a degree (of latitude) as 75 Roman miles (a mile was 5000 Roman feet of 296 mm.) The Roman foot is the edge of a quadrantal (80 librae in volume), which is a cube containing 8/9 of artaba (the cube the edge of which is a geographic foot). [ Aristotle]

"Aristotle reports 40,0000 stadia, and Eratosthenes (contemporary of Archimedes) calculated 25,0000 or 25,2000 stadia. It is an old problem that the length of the stadium varies in different locals, so that it is a separate problem to know what these values are in actual distance."

[ Mathematics/Archimedes/SandReckoner/Ch.1/Ch1.html sandreckoner]

As to the length 333.3 mm, if taken as 13 inches that is the side of an ancient measure called a talent which is a cube that contains 2219.36 cu in a volume known as the British imperial bushel.

"In Anglo-Saxon England (before the Norman conquest of 1066), short distances seem to have been measured in several ways. The inch (ynce) was defined to be the length of 3 barleycorns, which is very close to its modern length. The shaftment was frequently used, but it was roughly 6.5 inches long. Several foot units were in use, including a foot equal to 12 inches, a foot equal to 2 shaftments (13 inches), and the "natural foot" (pes naturalis, an actual foot length, about 9.8 inches). The fathom was also used, but it did not have a definite relationship to the other units."

[ Rowlett - Greek foot in use in Anglo Saxon England]

"Weights were probably based by the ancients upon grains of wheat or barley, but the Egyptians and Babylonians early adopted a more scientific method. Sir Charles Warren thinks that they took the cubes of the measures of length and ascertained how many grains of barley corresponded to the quantity of water these cubes would contain. ...The talent he regards as the weight of 2/3 of a cubit cubed," 1 Mesopotamia cubit = 500 mm, 2/3 that cubit is 333.3 mm

[ talent]

13 inches is also a Pythagorean triple.

"Construct two triangles; the first with sides of 6 inches, 8 inches and 10 inches, and the second with sides of 12 inches, 13 inches and 5 inches. Compare your triangles, what do they have in common? 3) What is the Plimpton 322 tablet?"

For example, Euclid states that from DB he subtracted DG, or a third part of DB, where DB represents the “octave,” ratio 2/1. Consequently, Figure 11(a) shows that on our Sample String, GB has a length of 500 mm – (500.0 mm ÷ 3) = 333.3 mm. This example shows the process of shortening a string section by dividing a previously calculated length into three aliquot (exact) parts and subtracting one of those parts; the result is an ascending “fifth,” interval ratio 3/2, from A' to E'. We conclude, therefore, that DB is the hemiolic [1 + 1/2] of GB, where DB has a length of 333.3 mm + (333.3 mm ÷ 2) = 500.0 mm.

[ the hemiolic of the octave]

Strabo does a good job of listing the geographers but makes no allowance for the fact that they are using stadia of different lengths. It thus appears to those who have not really gotten into the details that the values fluctuate widely all over the place from perhaps 400,000 stadia to 200,000 stadia.

[ Strabo] Rktect 20:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Drini

Given that anyone can contribute evidence, and since egil has covered most of Rktect's earlier contribs I'll provide evidence on more recent issues, as well as some highlights. (Even though I'm far from reaching 100 links, I stopped since I'm around 1000 words) -- ( ☺drini♫| ☎) 21:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply

19 August 2005

Vandalism:

15:45 [98]

15:46 [99]

15:48 (AS page has been deleted, links to specific versions: ( [100]) and rktect's mod ( [101])

15:54 and then he accepts vandalizing on purpose: [102]

29 August 2005

09:38 Personal attack

From WP:RFA: [103] (previous to the last item).

20 August 2005

Talk page disruption

Rktect removes other users comments: [104]

27 August 2005

Rktect's first batch of content added to Squaring the circle: [105].
11:31 Abuse of tags

Rktect adds disputed tag to Squaring the circle without never having edited the entry and never having discussed on the talk. [106]

20:25 Readding material and expanded on Squaring the circle: [107] (this is relevant as we'll see on september).

3 September 2005

17:08 rktect's blanks his talk page: [108]

5 September 2005

Personal attacks.

On User:RHaworth: [109]. Notice that even though the image was tagged on Sept 5, it was misleadingly added to Sept 3.

16:27 Rktect modifies an already closed Vfd page [110]

7 September 2005

23:16 Vandalism

Rktect's vandalizes my talk page: [111]

9 September 2005

02:48 Attempt at provocation

Rktect created a thread on my talk page under "Nitocris" [112] which turned out to be a provocation attempt ( [113]) as I have never edited or touched Nitocris

20:49 Major readdition of content to Squaring the circle: [114]

10 September 2005

06:50 Misleading use of edit summaries

Rktect's first participation on Squaring the circle talk page: [115]

Let be noted also rktect inserting top header sectioning in the middle of talks (so that they appear as different discussion threads).

11 September 2005

15:08 Readdition of content to Squaring the circle: [116]. Notice however the summary demanding first a talk discussion before making major changes. Let it be noted however that Rktect had been made major changes to the entry without ever touching the talk page up to the previous day (and NOT regarding his changes).

12 September 2005

18:43 User:Michael Hardy moves disputed tag on Squaring the circle to only a section (relevant later).
19:51 Disruption of talk page:

Rktect usually interleaves his comments on talk pages at the same indentation level without signing them: [117] which causes his commnets to look as if they had come from another user

21:36 Rktect readds his content, but somehow the disputed tag has dissapeared: [118]

21:56 Bad faith and Libel claims

Rktect lies in order to get me sanctioned accusing me of doing 4 reverts: [119]

However, page history shows that upto that point my only edits were 3 consecutive edits amounting to removing the disputed section ( [120]) and removal of some links ( [121]) which were later explained at talk page which were explained on the talk page at 22:31 ( [122])

22:23 Rktect's copies his content from Squaring the circle into Unit fraction, although it being a major change, he doesn't discusses in tlak as he demans others to do. [123]

13 September 2005

05:33 Disruption of talk page

Rktect's inserts a top header (==drini==) in the middle of a single comment by Egil on Talk:Squaring the circle: [124].

08:59 Ad hominem attacks against me to discredit me (near top and bottom), answered at [125]
09:54 False statements

Rktects wants to push the idea that egyptians knew analytic geometry. In [126] he states that googling for it gives almost 93000 links, however that is a false statement as can be checked with a google search: [127]. In the same edit, he does personal attacks and libel claims against me (for the record, I'm a mathematics graduate school student).

09:59 Misleading use of edit summaries:

Rktect readds the content copied from Squaring the circle into Unit fraction disguising it as adding only a couple of links. [128]

12:50 More of Rktect's ad hominem: [129]

15 September 2005

18:29 Rktect readds content to Squaring the circle: [130]

16 September 2005

19:56 When Rktect is asked for an explanation or a fact, he engages in long rants and talks instead of giving a simple answer. For instance at Talk:Squaring the circle: ( [131])

17 September 2005

02:48 Disruption of talk page

Rktect inserts top header section markup in the middle of discussion threeads in order to split them up so they appear as distinct threads: [132]

23 Septemer 2005

21:07 Bad faith and disruption of talk page

After being requested not to do it, Rktect again inserts top header markup in the middle of a talk (within 4 indentation levels): [133]

24 September 2005

07:42 Bad faith and disruption of talk page

Once again, after being requested not to do it, Rktect's insert top header markup in the middle of deep indentation levels of a single discussion thread: [134].

06 October 2005

19:13 Misleading use of edit summaries [135]

Here Rktect claims to beadding content (restoring references) when in fact he's blanking most of the article. -- ( ☺drini♫| ☎) 01:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

19:18 Rktect adds a big chunk of "references" [136] to English unit but none of them are relevant as commented on [137]. Notice that, again, Rktect makes major changes to pages to push his content (in this case the list of references he posts on all pages) without first discussing on talk page as he demands other users to do.

Other comments

The main problem with respect of Rktects contributions to measurement entries is that they are false and misleading in his affirmation of accuracy. For instance from [138]:

1 šusi (little finger) 1 15 1/20 pous of 300 mm

1 Roman uncia (thumb or inch) 1 24.7 mm 1/12 Iomic pous

or for example, as it can be seen from [139]:

cord 14.4m 16m 17m 18m 19.2m 18.5 17.76m 17.28m 18.288m sos 144m 160m 170m 180m 192m 185m 177.6m 172.8m 182.88m

Rktect affirms that ancient measures are often integer multiples of meter (up to tenths of milimiter precission (24.7mm)) which is false since Metric system wasn't stablished until XVIII century in france. Moreover, due to lacking precission at that time was shorter than it supposed and therefore earth circumference is not exactly 40 million meters (since rktect's meter is related to earth's diameter). Although it is possible for that some standars to exist on later periods, it's unlikely that they were fixed up to milimter percission as we have today mainly because there wasn't an international coordinate effort. Just consider that current imperial units system was first formally defined in 1824 and redefined in 1959. (See Imperial unit) -- ( ☺drini♫| ☎) 21:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by { Rktect 00:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)}

<19> <2005>

<15:21, August 19, 2005 >
- What happened.
  - Mile: Drini reverted edits by Rktect to last version by Gene Nygaard
<15:22, August 19, 2005 >
- What happened.
  - Khet: Drini (Reverted edits by Rktect to last version by BaronLarf)
<15:26, August 19, 2005 >
- What happened.
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3ht Drini voted to delete(→3ht, st3t, Egyptian fields)
<15:58, August 19, 2005 >
- What happened.
  - I went to Drini's user page and asked him what was going on.

[ Evidence]

Bottom line there is an excessive involvement of user drini in my affairs amounting to a systematic attempt to attack every contribution I make. I have attempted to engage drini on talk pages and have entered into mediation which is presently ongoing. Rktect 00:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Re drini's allegation of integer multiples of a meter to a precision of 1/10 milimeter ?!?, I often do round short measures to 1/10 mm and longer ones to +/- 1mm since carrying them out to three decimals of mm would involve dealing with their coefficient of expansion. Even if an ancient Mesopotamian cubit rod is found that we measure as 499.999 mm its actual value as a standard is probably no better than +/- 1 mm.

Re drini's charges of bad faith, misrepresentation of facts forgery, etc; these are just false baseless personal attacks so I ignore them, but as regards both drini and Egils false and ethnocentric statements denying the actual antiquity of measures these should not be condoned by an encyclopedia. Rktect 16:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Drini often removes cites and references from articles even while at the same time claiming they are original research or pseudoscience. From an article on circle squaring he repeatedly has removed information talking about the history of the problem prior to the 3rd century BC when the conditions of the solution were changed. This effectively removes the original form of the problem as it exists in the Rhind papyrus and eleswhere from the discussion which is like talking about an iteration after removing the first instance. Drini claims an awareness of mathematics which he often fails to evidence as in the discussions in unit fractions and circle squaring. Rktect 14:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Drini disputes the accuracy of measures of which he has no knowledge and says they are misleading. The premise is that feet (Greek pous, Roman pes) may be divided into hands or palms and fingers or thumbs. It is thus relevant to list the number of divisions and their size both in mm and in relation to the unit as a whole. Greek feet vary so there may be short, median and long forms. Their division into portions also varies and is generally related to the length. Some units classically listed as "feet" are actually spans, remen, pygons or even elles. Some feet are assumed to be divided into palms which are actually divided into hands and vice versa. All of this is simply outside the knowledge base of users Egil and drini even as other users find no difficulty in drawing the distinctions. Rktect 15:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Drini and others frequently revert pages removing important content syuch as references and adding in its place unreferenced false information and speculation. When I replace the false information with the references they removed they allege this is to the detriment of the article but I disagree. I would expect that any information added to an encyclopedia article which is speculative or counter to fact or POV would by its contraversial nature require some backup on the discussion page. Generally I see far more reverts by Drini et al than I do references. Rktect 13:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Jimp

User:Rktect uses deceptive mark up.
- At 19:13 GMT on the 6th of October 2005 Rktect claimed that he had "restored references" when in actual fact what he was up to was wiping out half an article. Here's Rktect's 6th of October version of Systems of measurement. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Systems_of_measurement&oldid=24912810
- At 15:08 GMT on the 14th of October 2005 Rktect claimed that he had "added some comments" to History of measurement. The truth of the matter was that he had replaced most of the text of the article with his own theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=History_of_measurement&diff=25511056&oldid=25396952

User:Rktect apparently is using a sock puppet.
- Federal Street at 09:56 (UTC) on the 17th October 2005 picks up Rktect's arguement for him on Talk:Systems of measurement. Is Federal Street Rktect's sock puppet as Carnildo suggests below?

Evidence presented by David.c.h

In my opinion, Rktect lacks the knowledge set or background experience required to speak with authority on the subject of metrology. I offer the following evidence from the article Metrology:

On the 27th of August 2005, Rktect added dispute tags to a factually accurate section of the article. [140] He gave no reason for adding the tags in the Discussion page Talk:Metrology.

On the 27th of August, Kenwarren removed the tags because there was no justification given. [141]

On the 28th of August, Rktect provided his points of disagreement in Talk:Metrology. [142]

On the 21st of September, Rktect deleted a “See Also” or referral section of the article [143]. This was a major change. Rktect made no comment or gave any justification for this deletion in the Talk:Metrology page.

On the 21st of September, Rktect deleted a relatively accurate definition of metrology and replaced it with an un-cited totally erroneous definition. Again, he made no comments in Talk:Metrology or offered any reasonable explanation in the edit summary. [144]

On the 21st of September, Rktect also deleted an accurate description of how metrology works and replaced it with another very erroneous statement dramatically attenuating the role of both standards and measurement to the field of Metrology. Again, Rktect failed to seek consensus prior to the deletion and gave no citations to add credence to the amendment. [145]

On the 22nd of September, Carnildo rightfully reverted the article to its previous state. [146]

On the 23rd of September Rktect reverted the article back to his/her prior erronious amendment of the previous day. He/she did this without seeking any consensus or mediation. [147]

On the 29th of August, Kenwarren entered into a discourse with Rktect that continued until the 23rd of September. Throughout the discourse, Rktect insisted that metrology was the “…study of measures and includes all their historic changes and the reasons for them.” ( Rktect 12:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)). Again, he/she never offered any authoritative citations to substantiate his/her claims. His/her arguments are in direct conflict with all National and International definitions of metrology (Refer to my citations in paragraph 1 of the revision of this article current on 13 October 2005). [148] reply

It is; therefore, clear to this metrologist that Rktect is confusing “units of measurement” with metrology. The prior is certainly important to the latter; however, it does not negate the fact that the science of metrology is not only focused on how those units are developed, used, maintained, modified, and certified, but also on the process of making measurements and how the results from those measurements are guaranteed to receive universal acceptance. It is here that Rktect is lacking the most. I recommend; therefore, that any future inputs by Rktect be limited to a section of this article relating strictly to the historical progression of what he calls “measures” and metrologist call either “units of measurement” or "standards."

Evidence presented by Carnildo

17 October 2005: Apparent sockpuppet User:Federal Street
- User:Federal Street, as his first edit, creates the article Foot-pound-second system, covering very familiar ground: [149]
- User:Federal Street, as his second edit, edits Talk:Acre, arguing the antiquity of certain units of measurement. [150]
- User:Federal Street, as his third edit, edits Talk:Systems of measurement, picking up a discussion where User:Rktect left off. [151]
- User:Federal Street, as his fourth edit, edits Ancient Egyptian weights and measures, removing dispute and cleanup tags, and adding some discussion of relationships to Greek and Roman measurement systems. [152]
- User:Federal Street, as his fifth edit, edits Pace (measurement) to add some familiar-looking information, including an insanely-precise conversion between the Roman pace and the Imperial inch. [153]

Evidence presented by Gene Nygaard

To add to the sockpuppet evidence presented by Carnildo

Use of the term "Horus Eye Fractions" by User:Federal Street in Foot-pound-second system, and also in some Rktect postings but not by anybody else, including the one so strikingly similar to this article contained on his user sandbox subpage at User:Rktect/Imperial units.
Use of the term "unit brutto" on both of those pages. 14:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Whining by User:Metarhyme

User:Federal Street is now also User:Sea level. Check out what's been going on at Talk:NSA warrantless surveillance controversy and Legality of warrantless surveillance. The Bushies think they can do anything they want. This incenses the sockpuppeteer who thinks he can do anything he wants. He's posting POV OR to suit himself, bullshitting facts more than Bush, if possible. Since he's in arb it was probably wrong for me to compain at at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#3 February 2006. I'm having another FTS moment. Senate hearings start February 6. Metarhyme 09:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Evidence provided by -- Michael saunders 23:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There really is far too much information put forward by rktect to give quantify all evidence for and against. Some of his evidence I can validate and some I am less then impressed with. I come to this site to add my knowledge for what its worth and not to partake in politics and squabbles. For that reason I have a wealth of material provided at my personal link above which corroborates some of rktects work. The rest of you can decide wether its suitable, admissable or relevant.

I am not happy about the lack of qualification with some of the material. Especially the sumerian (although I speak in general) which seems rather questionable in my eyes. If he can provide samples of the purely metricated material in stone and writing I would feel a damn site less concerned about the statements put over as factual.