. I will reply on this page, under your post. |
|
Status
Hello
Hey, how's it going? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.143.104 (talk • contribs) 15:28, August 18, 2007
Square root of 3 Talk page
Dear Arthur: The formerly active Talk:Square root of 3 as it previously existed, together with its edit history, disappeared. Today, IP 67.85.160.89 created a new Talk:Square root of 3 page with one word, "PROVE". Any idea how such a thing can happen or how it can be fixed? There was useful discussion about the article on the old Talk page. Thanks.Finell (Talk) 02:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have no idea. I can't find any log entries for the talk page, deletion logs, etc. Do you remember the last time you saw the talk page? Perhaps I can go through the logs searching for a secondary entry? Perhaps you might try Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Mathematics. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I now think that this was my mistake. I was confusing discussion on Talk:Square root of 5 (which is still there, intact) with Talk:Square root of 3; now, I am no longer sure that I ever saw the latter. Perhaps Talk:Square root of 3 really was just created, albeit with only one word (which made me think it was vandalism). I apologize for wasting your time. Finell (Talk) 18:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Indentation convention
Arthur, please see for instance, in Talk:function (mathematics), the section Talk:function (mathematics)#notation for functions.. Bo Jacoby started the section and kept 0th level of indentation. The same is true for thousands of other sections. If this also has the advantage of increasing readability by markedly shortening the (vertical) lenght of a very long (but also very important) contribution, I really can't see the reason to adopt a different convention.
Also, notice that the discussion Talk:function (mathematics)#Relations, functions, and partial functions is actually a continuation and expansion of the previous section, which I started ("Inconsistent or ambiguous definitions of the word function"). It even uses the same figure as a starting point. It even contains a reference to the previous section (see my second posting). Actually, its section header was added by me! Initially, it was under the header of the previous section. Moreover, Wvbailey wrote that he posted his first comment after readindg the section I started on talk:partial function!
Therefore, please allow me to decide the format and keep it consistent in these three cross-linked sections. I believe I deserved this little privilege. And I am not asking the privilege to vandalize: the convention I chose is as sensible as any other, but in this particular case it also has the above-mentioned advantage with respect to the others.
Thanks for your contribution, anyway. With kind regards, Paolo.dL 10:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you want to keep it consistent, do so. But when you make such long comments, it's important to make sure that other's comments are separated from yours by some indication. The standard convention is to use indentation level, but Bill inserted his comment at the same level as yours. If he had written a long comment at the same level, the talk section would be hopeless. Perhaps the non-standard and annoying ---- between comments in the section would be an alternative. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Everybody can easily see the separation between comments because each comment has a different indentation with respect to the adjacent ones. I repeat that this is a (perhaps not written yet, but widely used) standard. You can see examples everywhere in Wikipedia.
Notice that you keep giving indentation 1 to the comment "Bill here:", but this was posted by Wvbailey! And I thought that we agreed that Wvbailey has 0th level in this section. Since I am keeping level 2, and I am not Wvbailey, I cannot see the rationale in your edit summary:
- "fmt (if you going to use a non-standard indenting convention, you should monitor to ensure that other's comments aren't confused for yours)"
The only one who "stole" an indentation level is KMsqr (he stole level 1, which was previously used by Carl), but as long as the separation between his comment and the adjacent ones is clear, I am not going to discuss KMsqr's decision, which is perfectly acceptable and (in my opinion) even better than using indentation level 4! His comment is so good and general that he deserves level 1!
When the discussion will be closed, if it will become very long, we might be alble to use subheaders to enhance readability, if needed. Please trust me. I refactored several talk pages, I do care very much about readability and I know what I am doing. See, for instance,
- Exterior to what? Ausdehnungslehre means "extension theory", not "exterior theory" (conservative refactoring by inserting paragraph titles)
- Is there a convention about the order of multivector components? (conservative refactoring by inserting subheadings and paragraph titles)
- User talk:Paolo.dL (conservative refactoring by inserting introduction, summary, headings, subheadings and paragraph titles)
Regards, Paolo.dL 13:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Re
Hi, I am just inquiring about this edit. — Adriaan (T★C) 15:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's got references, doesn't it? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Sixteenth Amendment
With regard to the change you undid on the 16th Amendment article, why do you deem the Tax History Museum at http://www.tax.org/Museum/1901-1932.htm to be "not a reliable source"? The quotes on the page can be verified even if you do something as simple as googling for them -- they show up in the Google Books version of Theodore Roosevelt's Presidential Addresses and State Papers. Linking Google Books is impractical as there are page limits on how much one can view of a book at one time. 66.108.169.227 04:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry. There have been too many tax protester arguments added from unreliable sources lately. I've reverted myself. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Real number#space
I wanted to link R24 from Leech lattice and other places Rn appears, because there's no introductory material about it. It is the kind of baffling technical notation which often is overlooked by expert editors who don't think twice about it. What's a better way to do that? ←BenB4 15:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree #R is much better; will change it and ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. ←BenB4 15:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
"And the "clarifications" [of WP:NUMBER], if kept intact, are longer than WP:NOTE."
I'm not sure what you mean by this.[1] By my count WP:NUMBER is 8,767 bytes and WP:NOTE is 11,003 bytes. Whatever fraction of 8,767 bytes the WP:NUMBER clarifications are, they cannot possibly be more than WP:NOTE's 11,003 bytes. So, could you clarify what you meant by this? I'm not sure how you're coming to your conclusion that the clarifications of WP:NUMBER are longer than WP:NOTE. --Dragonfiend 17:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of paragraph on Osama bin Laden on 9/11 page
Dear Arthur
You have deleted the following sentence.
It is irony of fate, that Osama bin Laden received backup of both CIA and ISI as well as US-$ 3 billion when setting up terrorist training camps in Afghanistan in 1980's to fight the Soviet occupation of the country. [1] [2]
I agree that this paragraph and its references might be improved. However, I do not think it is irrelevant: A balanced account of Osama bin Laden in the context of 9/11 should include a short description on how he acquired money, power and know-how to accomplish the attacks since this may contribute to the question about the origin or terrorism. I have put the above sentence on the discussion page.
--Benjamin.friedrich 16:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- See the article talk page. I'm willing to discuss it, but we need real sources. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Golden Ration edits?
Dear Arthur,
I see that I added a phrase to an image that should have been added to the text next to it (which now is a fragment, though not necessarily worse than the wordy sentence it was before). I apologize for placing that phrase in the wrong position, which I'm sure I did because of unfamiliarity with the code.
Second, you took out the dates for Zeising as well as the brackets--but please note that I did not put those brackets there that form a link (albeit an empty one), only the years. I added his dates because he simply popped in out of nowhere, and those years form a sort of an introduction, even if still not a very good one. But I did not (as far as I know) make or break some Wiki-link, as is suggested on your page, and I don't see where I changed meaning unless it was by fixing grammar.
But I'll lay off. Thanks for your comment re: the picture, and perhaps you care to fix the actual paragraph next to it; I'll stay away from it and other articles. Good luck with your work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 18:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Perfect number
Will you allow me to change
- The smallest prime factor of N is greater than 739 (Cohen 1987).
to
- The smallest prime factor of N is greater than 2500000 (Yamada 2007).
from
[2]?
Thanks.218.133.184.93 05:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Others have reported that that paper doesn't support that result, and some question whether it's considered reliable. So, at this point, no. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've confirmed that Yamada 2007 only reports that conclusion if all the ei are 1 or 2, and it's still not published. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Yamada 2007 only reports that conclusion if all the ei are 1 or 2. So is Cohen 1987.218.133.184.93 09:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Even and odd numbers
Why is Nielsen's result not appropriate?218.133.184.93 09:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand your last refert on Meta-systems. Deleting a reference as linkspam doesn't make any sence. Please take a look Talk:Meta-systems. - Mdd 09:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- My apologies. Adam's "stuff" seems to be frequently inserted on plausibly-related articles, and I couldn't see it was being used as a reference rather than as linkspam. I've reverted my removal. That being said, I agree the article needs an {{expert}} opinion, as the body seems to be unsourced. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for this feed back. I know in the meantime how it feels to have to remove someone's linkspam over and over again. I realize now things are more complcated as they seemed. - Mdd 19:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The recent edit of Adam to Systemics makes me guess your were right from the beginning. I now referted his latests edit as selfpromotion. I would appreciate it if you could take a look here if you think I did the right thing. Thanks. - Mdd 11:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I have started some rewritting of the article and create some space for further development. I guess I should do the same with the Meta-systems artcile. I am still wondering however if I was right to remove Adam's edit as selfpromotion. In the edit summary I called it "Removed self promotion by sock puppet from User:Adam M. Gadomski". I guess I shouldn't have mentioned the sock pupppet, because it was an anomynous ID nummer. - Mdd 15:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
iff
Sorry, I think its confusing the other way and thought the comparison of the truth tables would make it easier to understand. --Kenneth M Burke 23:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Million
I'm terribly disappointed in the recent edits to this page and User talk:152.91.9.144. To suggest that {{uw-3rr}} is appropriate is either an attempt to intimidate or displays a grotesque misunderstanding of the three revert rule. There was, in anything other than the most midless and bloody-minded reading, not even a single "revert."
- A bot mistakenly reverts twice: Are you suggesting than anon << bot?
- PrimeFan reverts with an edit summary that indicates he's mistaken the edit for vandalism.
Please do review both these edits, and the arguments in talk. Projects do not own pages.
124.190.20.47 07:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- To take your points in order:
- You have reverted at least twice. Even reverting a bot counts as a revert.
- The bot did not revert "mistakenly", it was quite correct.
- PrimeFan's description may not be the best, but "per talk" shows a clear misunderstanding of the contents of the talk page. Repeating the error, after it's pointed out, is pretty close to vandalism.
- — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
please stop this nonsense
Please specify what bothers you about my edits in Colloidal gold. Your reverts are extremely destructive to Wiki. Stop it. V8rik 19:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- As I cannot confirm that your sources support your changes, I think I might revert anyway. However, I decided to just correct your edit and add a {{dubious}} tag. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Pi (copied from user page)
Forgive me for placing this here, Arthur, but I couldn't figure out where else to put it.
There is a glaring error in the article on pi, the transcendental mathematical constant. Naturally, this article happens to be protected, heaven forfend that the great gods of Wikipedia could conceivably commit an error!
The article claims that pi is not constructible because it is transcendental. This may be sufficient, but it is not necessary. After all, the square root of two is transcendental, but I can readily construct it by drawing two perpendicular line segments of length one and merely forming the diagonal that completes the isosceles triangle.
Please correct the "pi" article or see that it is corrected, skeptic Jewish mathematician user (from another skeptic Jewish mathematician user).
Thank you!
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.68.72 (talk • contribs) 19:27, September 23, 2007
- I don't see anything wrong with "An important consequence of the transcendence of π is the fact that it is not constructible." And the square root of 2 is not transcendental. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
More on pi
No, indeed it isn't transcendental. I got ahead of myself. It is irrational but not nonconstructible. Come to think of it, the pi article didn't say that irrational numbers are nonconstructible, so nix it. Thank you. -- BDWilner 9/23/07 16:09EDT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.68.72 (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I still have Morgellons on my watch list, and I notice that some of your sensible-looking changes have been reverted. Is it time for more formal procedures, like an article RfC? The Talk page is a bit funny, in that it's hard to see if a consensus has been sought on the term 'medical.' Semi-protection is something to be considered. Since you've been following the recent history more closely, perhaps you can advise what should be done. EdJohnston 21:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
ok thanks
Dear Arthur, I don't want to be in a war. But were you not in it too? (You won by the way). I do feel that as someone who has listened to a lot of what A.J. has to say, that to begin an article about him by defining him as a promoter of conspiracy theories is not a fair and just representation. I think he is someone who feels he has been lied to-has done actual research of published sources that has confirmed his suspicion, demonstrably. I may be wrong, but that does not make him a promoter of conspiracy theories. If I tell you you have a red face- then you look in the mirror and see it is not red- then you declare that your face is not red- this does not make you a conspiracy theorist- or promoter of conspiracy theories. Does it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camdoon (talk • contribs) 06:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I must disagree that he's presented evidence of the "truth" of his theories, as opposed to your claim that he's presented proof. But we've both lost, because the lie that he predicted 9/11 is now back in the article, and I can't revert it, because I used 2 reverts on your mistakes. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- There's been a bunch of nonsense added to that article in the past 24 hours and I've exhausted my reverts as well (otherwise I would clean the article up). The current version of the article is unacceptable. Why is it that I find myself approaching 3RR on that article more than any other? Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
re: "Logical connective" vandalism
Thank you for your inquiry on my user talk page, "Please explain why your link satisfies WP:RS or WP:EL?" For an explanation, see the new web page "Venn Diagrams and Finite Geometry" about the article on Logical connective. Cullinane 13:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you also for a separate inquiry today on my user talk page, "Please explain (through Wikipedia E-mail, or on my talk page) if you think there's a problem with DMOZ, or file an abuse report. I'll investigate to the best of my ability. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)"
Yes there is a problem wth DMOZ. For details, follow the links in the web page "Ashay Dharwadker and Usenet Postings".
For further evidence, see the DMOZ page on graph theory that is edited by Ashay Dharwadker.
Of the 30 links there, 6 are to Dharwadker's own pages at
http://www.geocities.com/dharwadker/
The home page of the Geocities site is devoted to Dharwadker's alleged proof of the four-color theorem.
For an appraisal of the alleged proof, see the archived Wikipedia discussion.
Anyone who questions the alleged proof is liable to be attacked under a variety of aliases. For an example other than myself, see the attacks by 122.163.***.*** and by "Rstewart" on Wikipedia administrator Jitse Niesen in May and June of this year.
If such attacks and vandalism are temporarily stopped by blocking the New Delhi IPs beginning with 122.163, they will likely resume from a new Internet service provider or proxy. Nevertheless, such a block seems worthwhile. Cullinane 17:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have edited the following comment by Greg Bard objecting to my implication that an illustration he used had not been arrived at independently, and to my use of an offensive term. The comment has been edited to remove the term, which I have retracted. Cullinane 00:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- The arrangement of those diagrams are NOT from your website. That arrangement follows a logical pattern that A) has been published in numerous other places, long before your website, and B) follows a logical pattern such that it does not impart any new information that every rational being already knows directly. The pattern is no coincidence because it follows a logical pattern, not because it was copied from your site. Furthermore, the convention of shaded areas as "false" and white areas as "true" is the prevailing convention in literature on the topic.
- I do not know anything about a user from New Dehli abusing an account. That is a separate matter, and should be dealt with appropriately. If this user's actions instigated this accusation on myself, please re-evaluate your motivations. It seems that you added your page as a reference to that section, which is a welcome contribution, and it was removed by someone, which I agree is dumb. Please do not take your bad experience out on me. Also, the name Johnston diagram is the one used by an existing Wikipedia image which was the basis for the rest.
- The only reason your page containing this arrangement is mentioned, is so as to explain a tesseract representation of the operators. This representation, interestingly, was removed from Wikipedia because it was believed by one person to perhaps be an arbitrary arrangement. The presence of the arrangement of diagrams on your page is unremarkable, non-original, and non-creative. Your belief that your page is the source of this arrangement is false, and the edit history of the page in question is consistent with that fact.
- Be well, Greg Bard 23:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you profusely for your kind conciliation on my talk page. I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you again here. Be well Greg Bard 23:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
re: base composition edits
hi arthur.
indeed, i had checked into the right space for awhile of where this information would go.
modular arithmetic has something to do with the results of the combinations, but the information is really about what exactly is inside any given base B.
hence, from what i can figure out, the closest fit is inside the definition of a base itself, since the components are from that base.
that modular arithmetic comes into play is no surprise, as what the layout is talking about is the means of which to comprehend the symmetric, infinitely long 'strings' that make up any given base B.
that said, i think modular arithmetic is a means to examine, not what is actually being presented.
what i'm describing is more akin to a knot. there are a number (B - 1) of threads that, when woven together, create base B.
my argument for this information being in the base category is that these threads are unique in composition and position for each base B, thus are describing an inherit property of base B, and B could be any number, so it has to do exactly with.. well.. bases.
so, unless you can give me the go ahead to create a new page and link to it from the 'base' page directly, as it is directly following that and is indeed describing the internal composition of the bases, i'm pretty sure that the base page is where this information is to be entered.
thanks, chris.
UmbraPanda 21:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Nope. It's relevent (if at all) to calculations modulo B, rather than in base B. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you're properly comprehending the properties i'm disclosing.. it's not surprising, i've not seen the research anywhere else, and it's nearly too simple to see.
I'll try clarifying.
The only modulation used is the base itself. This is the first principle that you'll need to come to terms with.. it's unary in nature. Unary as a concept usually relates to a sequence of 111111 or whatever. in this case, it's BBBBBBBBB.
Following from this first principle of unary operation, the only operation space is the total span of the base itself. Thus, it looks like modular arithmatic, but it's really not. There's no concept of zero in there, nor any other quantized 'number' except for B. It's an expansion with B as unary operations.
So it's unary, operating on itself, revealing the patterns that make that specific unary cohesive as a.. domain perhaps. there's not really a word for it in english.
To push it into modular domain would be missing the point completely, narrowly. This is not a base operating on another base, this is a base as a unary element operating fully on itself.
The reason for the other 'numbers' is the quantization of what can be perceieved as spacial relationships of, like I said, something akin to strings. These, when written out, seem to be other 'numbers', but when there is just the unary to consider, it is what you're missing in the consideration itself. These are the symmetric spacial elements that construct the inner workings of base B, allowing all other quantizations in the next stages of mathematics.
I hope that this makes it clearer what exactly is going on.. you have to look at what is being represented. My position before is the same as it is now, that this procedure shows an inherit property of base B, is fully cyclic, fully symmetric, and totally composes B as an operator. There is no recognition of this procedure within the mathematics community that i've seen to date, no categorical entry more suited to this information than in the base category itself, else directly linked from that category into a new category, akin to anatomy from the body
Chris. UmbraPanda 01:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- It still looks to me as if it involves sequences modulo B. In general, anything involving the least significant digit of integers in base B belongs under modular arithmetic, rather than base B. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
on afterthought, and paying more attention to the 'radix' marker on this category, i think the termonology i'm using could use some refinement. i am referring to the terminating quantization diagram of a base on a given field, so i'll put some more thought into a section of modular field theory or some such.
Chris.
UmbraPanda 17:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- On further consideration, I think your material cannot be included in any Mathematics article unless it is published somewhere. If it's not the least significant digit of a linear progression (skipping 0s), I don't know what it is, and we would need a reference. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
right, i came to the same conclusion regarding the referencing. it's a fascinating aspect of quantization if you get it.. the internal symmetries of how a base quantizes the underlaying field geometry. i'll try something like arvix.org
chris
UmbraPanda 23:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- arvix.org (or however it's spelled) is not a WP:RS as far as we (Wikipedia) are concerned. I think we'll need a published source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
arxiv.org is maintained by the 'Cornell University, a private not-for-profit educational institution. arXiv is also partially funded by the National Science Foundation', which made me think it was a credible source.
so by published you mean perhaps a peer-reviewed journal? which of these is acceptable to Wikipedia?
chris
UmbraPanda 16:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- archiv.org is maintained by Cornell University, but not reviewed in any sense. It could be used, at most, to confirm that "the author claims....", without regard to truth. In the case of mathematics, a peer-reviewed journal is generally considered to be required, except for some cases involving recreational mathematics where such should not be expected. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Oddity
Wondering about this edit. In your edit summary, you seem to predict the SearchChiro addition a full two minutes before it is even added. Am I missing something? -- Levine2112 discuss 07:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's a complex history...
- 06:17: Chirosearch added it here
- 06:18: Shot info removed the link only here
- 06:20: I completed reversion of the reordering here, without noticing the previous partial reversion
- 06:22 Chirosearch readded the link only here
- 06:29: I re-reverted at here
- — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
It is VANDALISM 3RR rule does not apply to VANDALISM. Read the policy.
Hello There,
I understand that you may be trying to do good here, but I have already been through this. IPs come in and editing the John Morgan page, as well as others, with known NON SENSE. I remove it. Removing non sense is NOT VALDALISM. I have engaged them on many occasions, note the DISCUSSION OF THE PAGE, and noone ether replies, or they change it anyway, or they say that it is true without sourced information or they revert the edit and add even crazier things. Please follw up before you warn THE WRONG PERSON of the 3RR rule. IF you want to be productive, ban the IPs that are doing the known and documented vandalism, protect the site from editing by IPs but don't warn the guy trying to keep the article honest about the 3RR rule when he has already gone through the process before and was vindicated
-Kirkoconnell 15:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- I know 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism, but adding of unsourced (but not disproven) favorable information about a person in his article is not vandalism. (I was going to suggest semiprotection this morning. Perhaps I'll do that now.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I have decided to take the mediation case. I would like you to take part in the discussion--Phoenix 15 19:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations! You have been awarded a Barnstar
The Invisible Barnstar | ||
In addition to being a good mathematician, you are a very good user. NHRHS2010 Talk 21:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
About deletion
Аhow can I delete an article that I had made in wiki. thanks october/5/2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.102.161.2 (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- You can't actually delete it yourself. You may request deletion by placing the {{db-author}} tag at the top of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information, or to see whether I've misinterpreted your request. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
911 consiracy theories
How can you revert for OR when it is a factual event and the reference given is a scientific journal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WLRoss (talk • contribs) 07:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Placing the fact that airliners can be flown remotely with the theory that it was done in 9/11 qualifies as WP:SYN. Only if some of the truthers made the connections would it be allowable in the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- My reason for adding it was that the section currently implies that it is something never done before and is only technically feasable. I suggest that to make it more NPOV some mention should be made that military use of remote control for large aircraft is a fact and to use the link for that instead of detailing the actual event. I can tell you that some claim that all Boeing aircraft computor systems currently have the capability to hand remote control to a third party. There is evidence DARPA designed a system to take over a planes computor but no evidence it was ever used. I'd rather not add that but the section does need to be balanced. Wayne 07:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Arthur, I just came upon this article that has a clean up needed on it. I would like to help with this article's balance and also help with the very long footnotes but would love any suggestions you have since I suspect this is a very controversial article. I haven't read through the whole article yet but I have most of it. I also looked at the footnotes and so far found one (#41 Who Killed John O'Neil) advert and two blogs, #14 & 244. Can you suggest a way for me to enter this article without causing myself problems with other editors who have been or are now very active on this article? I would appreciate any suggestions you have. Thanks,--CrohnieGalTalk 11:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Category
Category: calques from German was deleted, due to its "essentially the same as Catergory:german loanwords." Sorry! 172.192.43.160 20:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- It was deleted, not merged. category:German loanwords does not include calques. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes User talk:172.191.100.66 is samel. 172.192.43.160 20:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 12#Category:Calques from German — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
THEY DO "CONTAIN STRING 'LOG'"...LEARN GREEK FOR ONCE 172.192.43.160 23:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. I was reading AN/I and noticed your post. You appear to be dealing with the same editor whose edits I have had to revert recently due to a large number of factual inaccuracies and lack of sourcing. The most recent of these is the contributions of 172.190.67.32, where German (and even some Hebrew) surnames were marked as German loanwords inappropriately. I also had to revert a large amount of plausible, but incorrect information at List of most common surnames by the same author.
- The history of that article seems to show this is the IP address of User:R9tgokunks (see 29 September). Further evidence for this comes from looking at the history of the article Calque - cf ([3], [4], [5] and then your latest experience [6]); also cf Prekmurje ([7] and [8] - anyone for grammer?), Spitz ([9], [10]) or [11] with [12].
- Overall, I suspect at least [13] (numerous warnings on talkpage), [14] (that you encountered first), [15], (one block from you) and [16] (much edit-warring in history and almost identical edits here, here and [17]) are User:R9tgokunks.
- Personally, I'm worried about the amount of just plain wrong information this editor is including - even if it's written in the best of faith, it leads people astray. See here, here, here, here, here, here and here for a sample of mistakes I've corrected. Looking at [18], he knows a little German, but certainly not enough to avoid simple errors when editing German language related articles. A little knowledge can indeed be a dangerous thing - see [19].
- It might be worth having a chat with User:Future Perfect at Sunrise who blocked them previously for edit-warring and knows more about them. Might be worth a checkuser too. Knepflerle 12:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- ^ "How the CIA created Osama bin Laden". GreenLeft News. 2001, September 19.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ "Bowling for Columbine".