User talk:Arthur Rubin: Difference between revisions

Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post. This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 28 days are automatically archived to User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2024 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• Jay David Adkisson see if sources can be found for notability... (I doubt it, also.)
• Dasavathaaram; the movie illustrates/demonstrates what would best be called "coincidence theory", rather than chaos theory or the butterfly effect; that things and people once related to each other will interact again, perhaps in another incarnation. It's a little different than the law of contagion, but perhaps not significantly so.

Arthur, I wanted to say that I agree with the removal of the fairtax.org content for weight on that area and accuracy reasons, but I believe you are wrong on the point that it is an unreliable source. It is a reliable primary or tertiary source. If given proper attribution for the opinion, content from that site could be included. It's not a preferred secondary source and that viewpoint might not deserve weight (although it is the most sponsored tax reform plan in Congress), but it is a reliable primary source for that plan and their viewpoint on tax reform. Morphh ^(talk) 0:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note this comment - any accounts you noticed by RE in the past couple days, could you plunk down somewhere and let me know? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Arthur Rubin. I got a smidgen carried away, there, about the category template, at Physics of the Impossible. Ti-30X (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't transfer the preventing school violence entry to the school violence entry. The quality of the preventing school violence entry, as it stands right now, is too weak. Perhaps it will improve at some future date. Currently, it is not properly sourced. Mostly secondary sources and anecdotes. The difference in quality is too great. The school violence entry already has properly sourced citations. Mainly primary sources from refereed journals.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Iss246 (talk • contribs) 03:54, June 26, 2009

I'm willing to let the article continue to develop, but only those parts which do not relate to general school violence or general vilence prevention should remain. I really don't know if that would leave anything, even if the sourcing were properly done. I'm not willing to have SeeAlso's from loosly related article, however. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might have explained your objections. I have rarely ever seen objections about related articles being put in the see also section, it isn't like Im forcing any one to read it. So far no one has provided much of an explanation as to what is wrong with this article. Mostly people have deleted links claiming it is original work without commenting on the sources who all agree on the basics. I find it somewhat ironic that someone who claims to be opposed to censorship is deleting links without explanation especially since I find it hard to see what is so bad about opposing child abuse and other causes of violence. Part of the problem is that the traditional media reports on it like entertainment and often glorifies it. I haven't mentioned that in the article since I haven't sourced it but it is reflected in the attitudes of many people who get there information from the media. I have tried to cite sources that rely on more research and the only person who ackowledges reading some of my sources seems to be the only one who agrees. This isn't farfetched material I'm putting in. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the articles you linked to Preventing School Violence should have been linked to school violence, if linked to a related article in that family at all. Although I have doubts that a reasonable article could be produced at preventing school violence (which probably should be school violence prevention), I'm willing to let it develop, but not with inappropriate links to it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your, or my personal view of this man, "conspiracy theorist" is POV. If predicting 9/11 three or so months before hand makes him a "conspiracy theorist", and I, or anyone else for that matter, has no hope of changing it because Arthur Rubin says no, then I fear that Wikipedia is no longer a neutral or verifiable source for controversial material. If it's nothing more than a "cabal" that I am against, and I simply need to "get with the program", then accept my formal apology for trying to make Wikipedia sound as fair as possible for everyone. JeremiahSamuels (talk) 11:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. If you want to replace the description to "considered to be a conspiracy theorist by all marginally credible sources", I could go with that, but "conspiracy theorist" seems a reasonable shorthand. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, my original premise still stands. It's only unfortunate that I'm new here and don't know how to effect any real difference without running into a Sysop with more Wikipedia Magic, and clearly a more important opinion, bias and all.

By the way, I know that you have run into this exact issue before. It was amusing, yet saddening, to see one of your cabal friends isolating "troglyodyte" in his appeal to give him a last-straw warning against blockage. You merely ridiculed his premise. JeremiahSamuels (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A preliminary answer was entered in Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 27. Also, please take no offense in the blanking of my Talk page. Cheers, Henry Delforn (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I fell for it once before"

To what/when/where are you referring?
-- watching here --William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I reverted the previous out-of-process template change that you alerted us to. No offense, but the changes were so interlaced that I couldn't figure out how to back them out. No offense intended. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that matter, I hadn't told you that I'd prepared them for deletion/restoration in any way. It didn't help that Farmbrough was actively modifying templates at the same time as you were reverting, and his bot refused to stop, even though his previous deletions had been reverted and cleaned up after the previous discussion. In any case, as no offense was intended, your comment yesterday was awkwardly phrased, and I'd appreciate a re-phrasing.
-- a mere <= 4 --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, did not realize I was vandalizing. I searched Titanic in the article's talk page, and as I found nothing I included the anniversary on the article. Also, I don't believe I've been doing any "disruptive edits". Just trying to help. -- Rick Cooper ^{(Talk page)} 14:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I notice you re-removed the link to boomerang and said "boomerang doesn't have a reference to the term or to this article". Why does that suggest there shouldn't be a link?

I noticed a parallel in Wikipedia's articles on crocodile and crocodile tears: the latter links to the former, but not vice versa. Same with Jesus and Jesus freak. (Sorry for the pejorative example - I was trying to think of compounds.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by UserAccount001 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps to wikt:boomerang; it seems that none of our articles on topics related to the word "boomerang" mention the secondary definition of "returning"; if you can find one which should, and add it, then the link (directly to that article and section, not to the disambiguation page) would be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A link to wikt:boomerang would accomplish what I wanted (a visual confirmation of the metaphor), so thank you for that suggestion! But I'd still like to ask you about this, to understand Wikipedia's policy on links. (I've wondered about this. It seems that people link willi-nilli to anything Wikipedia has an article on, but you clearly have a more deliberate rationale in-mind.)

Why would I link to one of the "articles on topics related to the word 'boomerang'" and not to boomerang itself?

Also, why would a link to wikt:boomerang be appropriate but not to boomerang?

Thanks! UserAccount001 (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should link to a specific article, either on Wikipedia or on WIktionary, which mentions use of the word "boomerang" as meaning that which "returns". (By the way, in Failure to Launch, he never left home. Not quite the same....). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence is in the intro to boomerang: "The most recognizable type is the returning boomerang, which is a throwing stick that travels in a elliptical path and returns to its point of origin." Doesn't that establish that returning is a central characteristic of (the most recognizable type of) boomerangs? UserAccount001 (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not that clear. But, even so, for it to be relevant, the article need mention a general returning property. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me if this is correct (hypothetically - I don't think this is warranted): Say I were to add a section to boomerang called "Boomeranging as a generalized type of motion" and the section read "The unusual characteristic of returning to the point of origin has made the boomerang a common metaphor for objects - and even abstract states - that proceed in a there-and-back fashion. Cf. wikt:boomerang and boomerang generation." (The Wiktionary entry does reference this and identifies a verb "to boomerang" and a noun "boomeranger" meaning one who returns home after college.) Then it would be kosher to link boomerang generation to that section of boomerang, right?

But I'd like to ask a follow-up question: why is such a rigid referential link necessary? When I'm reading an article that casually mentions Brazil (without Brazil being crucial to the topic), I like the convenience of being able to click to Brazil. Does Wikipedia officially deprecate that kind of link? What might help me get my mind around this is: can you direct me to a Wikipedia policy on linking? That way I can do my homework and come to you (if necessary) with better-informed questions. Thanks again for your time. UserAccount001 (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought of a comparison apropos of Brazil! brazil nut contains the text "The Brazil nut tree is ... native to the Guianas, Venezuela, Brazil, eastern Colombia, eastern Peru and eastern Bolivia." Each of those place-names is linked to the article, but not to a special section of the article on Brazil nuts or even on domestic products / agriculture / ecology; just the main article. None of the articles (I checked) contains an embedded reference to Brazil nuts. So this seems to violate what you're saying, as do the examples I used before - crocodile, Jesus.

That doesn't mean you're wrong, but I think it means you need a powerful rationale for going against what I would argue is a nearly ubiquitous practice of linking without strong justification - for going against that and reversing an edit I made in that tradition. I hope it's OK to challenge you on that. I find the process of composing and editing in Wikipedia to be fascinating and worth understanding well. I'm asking all this so I can be a better contributor in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UserAccount001 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr. Rubin,

First I would like to thank you for your work that you do with Wikipedia. It is a great service. Second, I would like to know what is the process to respond to the changes you made to my edits (actually my edits were completely reverted). I can provide formal arguments and cite published journals showing that my edits should stand. I apologize in advance if the reverted edits were caused by my failure to follow proper procedure.

Sincerely,

Christopher Henry, B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D. Candidate Computational Intelligence Laboratory Elect. & Comp. Engineering, University of Manitoba, (AKA NearSetAccount)

Whatever a near set is, it's not a concept in set theory, and WP:MOS includes the fact that there should rarely be piped links in the #See Also section, and then it should only in the form [[Article name#Section name|Section name]], or some similar name indication. Perhaps you could comment at WT:MATH (the WikiProject Mathematics talk page), and request advice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. However, your comment should read "it’s not a concept in traditional set theory." Near set theory is applied set theory and is built on the fundamentals of traditional set theory, as well as, Rough set theory. It is an accepted research area and is well published.

To borrow from the Wikipedia set page:

By a "set" we mean any collection M into a whole of definite, distinct objects m (which are called the "elements" of M) of our perception [Anschauung] or of our thought.

In near set theory, the elements of a near set are distinct objects that are elements of our perception. A set ${\displaystyle X}$ is considered a near set relative to a set ${\displaystyle Y}$ in the case where the feature values of one or more of the objects in the set ${\displaystyle X}$ are almost the same (within some epsilon) as the feature values of one or more of objects in a set ${\displaystyle Y}$. In effect, any traditional Cantor set ${\displaystyle X}$ is called a near set whenever the nearness requirement is satisfied. I would be more than happy to send you a copy of an article giving the underlying theory on near sets.

So, what is the proper procedure for us to more forward? I would like near sets added to the see also section of the page on Set Theory.

Lastly, I would also like to add that you rejected some of my other edits that had little or nothing to do with traditional set theory. Was this just a matter of improper formatting of the links, i.e., because they were “piped links?” Christopher Henry 2:22, 02 July 2009 (UTC)

The investigation can be found here. I also thought you might want to take a look at an the evidence page I created before actually filing the report. Unitanode 19:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is awesome! I can't believe the editing process gets this involved! I think it's great that there's a process in-place to deal with that kind of "chicanery" (good word). Good luck getting to the bottom of it! UserAccount001 (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added some detail as to a potential 3RR violation, and tagged the checkuser request. Perhaps that will help. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I'm an active member of the Bot Approvals Group, and I have a distinct interest in making sure that bots will operate only according to consensus with community support. In the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot, I saw your !vote that said "The proposer's lack of understanding of the end cases suggests this bot may damage articles, even in cases where the unlinking is clearly (and can be seen to be clearly by the bot) a good idea. I may change my !vote when the code is published, but there seems to be a likelyhood of significant damage caused by the bot." I would like to know more about this. If the proposer does not understand how the bot may change articles, or will damage articles in unrelated ways, he would not be approved to run it. In fact, there is a significant possibility that Apoc2400 would not be the person chosen to operate such a bot. In is extremely important to us at BAG that this task be run by someone who has the trust of the community. That's why I'm interested in your insights about this bot idea in general, and about Apoc2400 in specific. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my concern is that the proposed scope of the bot may not properly deal with edge-cases, since Apoc2400, as well as the date delinkers named in the date delinking RfAr, seem to be unable to understand that only autoformatting is deprecated, not date links per se. I would consider the bot in keeping with community consensus if it were written to only handle correctly autoformatting cases, and to handle them by mapping them to a valid date format. Lightbot, for example, damaged a number of "dates" of the form [[June 2]], [[1993 in film|1993]] by changing it to [[June 2]], 1993, rather than to the more plausible June 2, [[1993 in film|1993]]. If the bot changes only autoformatted dates, and changes them to a valid date format in keeping with the majority of dates in in the article, I would still rather it not be done, but agree that it meets an apparent consensus. There seems to be disagreement about that in Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot, as well, but I think there is a clear consensus against the current method of autoformatting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I read the proposal, it would only handle autoformatting cases such as [[June 2]], [[1993]]. It will not alter [[June 2]], [[1993 in film|1993]] at all. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out.

He's technically right as to Generation Y. I commented in the report. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? If I'm blocked for this, I'm done. Unitanode 02:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I commented there. Unitanode 03:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This was not vandalism. It was unsourced and weakly worded, undoing it as such was ok, but it was a good faith edit, not WP:Vandalism. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked the wrong button. There is a lot of inappropriate additions and deletions (conspiracy theorist?) to that article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I reverted what looked to me like a deletion of well-sourced material. I saw you reverted it, and looking further back, I can see that there appears to be an edit war going on over it. I usually like to stay out of such affairs, so if you could let me know what the objection is to that material, I can step aside and let the rest of you work it out. Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's mostly about Generation Jones; a now-blocked editor and a number of WP:SOCKS have been adding material about it to many articles, some where it is tangential, and all with undue emphasis (yes, even in Generation Jones, itself). Some of the material is sourced, although most seem to be quasi-press-releases and articles by and about Pontell, rather than neutral articles about Generation Jones and the Baby Boom Generation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-sock, I think the information that you reverted is directly relevant, in addition to being well-sourced. Having had some limited experience with the Generation Jones business, I can appreciate your frustration, though. Would you mind self-reverting that change? — Bdb484 (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've opened a discussion relevant to this at the talkpage. Unitanode 14:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm posting this on your (and other members of the Maths Wikiproject) talk as we need editors who are knowledgeable about Mathematics to evaluate the following discussion and check out the editors and articles affected. Please follow the link below and comment if you can help.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_-_uninvolved_admin_request.

Thankyou. Exxolon (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am truly sorry for my display of inappropriate behavior on the List of Numbers. It was a high honor to be caught by you, good sir. Thank you for setting me back on the path of virtuousness and righteousness. Yours indefinitely, 69.141.149.78 (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said what I said was demonstrably false: Arthur, prove it then, don't just use pretense, and what what is your evidence that the editors I mentioned are still alive being that I didn't reference any specific editors? Do you know what the word evidence means? Hint: It doesn't mean whatever you say is demonstrably false, if it is, demonstrate it, don't just claim it. On top of that Arthur, why didn't you just remove the reference to the blogger, and ask for me to cite my source, rather than assuming? You've demonstrated then a non-neutral point of view. You may want to cut that out before it becomes apparent that you are biased against Christians and creationists or in favor of DMOZ.Whiplashes (talk)

But i cannot agree with you sir. I copied them from a book where they are listed under the heading "rules for matrix differentiation". They cannot be readily derived from either of the formulas listed on matrix differentiation, nor on Table of derivatives. And they are also useful, as an example consider the problem of maximizing likelihood of a linear model where variance-covariance matrix Ω(θ) depends on parameter:

${\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}(\theta ,\beta )=(2\pi )^{-T/2}|\Omega (\theta )|^{-1/2}e^{-{\tfrac {1}{2}}(y-X\beta )'\Omega (\theta )^{-1}(y-X\beta )},}$

a problem which arises for example in time-series models. Anyways, could you please either restore those formulas or find an appropriate page where they could be placed. // Stpasha (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,I'm Guohonghao,a Chinese student in BUAA.
In the Derivative of linear functions in Matrix calculus in wikipedia, it says

${\displaystyle {\frac {\partial \;{\textbf {x}}^{T}{\textbf {A}}}{\partial \;{\textbf {x}}}}={\textbf {A}}^{T}}$

I wonder whether it's corect. I think ${\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}^{T}}$ is a row vector,and ${\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}^{T}{\textbf {A}}}$ is also a row vector. So ${\displaystyle {\frac {\partial \;{\textbf {x}}^{T}{\textbf {A}}}{\partial \;{\textbf {x}}}}}$ should be a large row vector. And it will no be equal to ${\displaystyle {\textbf {A}}^{T}}$,which is a matrix.
I don't know where I go wrong.Please give me an advice.Thanks a lot.
--Guohonghao (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Guohonghao[reply]

Ouch, you're right.

${\displaystyle {\frac {\partial \;{\textbf {x}}^{T}{\textbf {A}}}{\partial \;{\textbf {x}}^{T}}}={\textbf {A}}^{T}}$

is correct, though, although confusing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After my calculation,I think it will be

${\displaystyle {\frac {\partial \;{\textbf {x}}^{T}{\textbf {A}}}{\partial \;{\textbf {x}}^{T}}}={\textbf {A}}}$

Please check that again.--Guohonghao (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Guohonghao[reply]

FYI: User_talk:Whiplashes#Welcome.21 —Finell (Talk) 11:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's revert warring. Also, while User:Whiplashes is a brand new account, the user seems to know more about Wikipedia practices than a brand newbie. You might want to have checkuser run to see if this is a sockpuppet. Finell (Talk) 12:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I that is better to use external links when using wikipedia as "references". Apart from being cross namespace links, they should probably point to the original page at en.wikipedia.org is the article was forked to soem other website, for example. Cheers, —Ruud 00:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look, there's even a guideline for such cases. —Ruud 00:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In context, it should probably link to specific versions of Carl's lies statements. Perhaps a self-reference to the specific RfAr to support Carl being banned might also be appropriate, but that's a primary source. On the other hand, Carl is also a primary source, so....

But I can see your point, although I think it adds to the confusion Carl wishes to spread about Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would take a little more time for reflection before shooting from the hip at 911Truth. My suggestion that Jones was evidence based is entirely unworthy of your excited reply along those specific lines. At this link, you will see that every page of his paper refers to studies or data or evidence, including NIST, meaning evidence based.

This is relevant to Quest's claims about 911 researchers who question government claims. It is also relevant to the term 'conspiracy theoricist' for which there is no consensus due to its multiple meanings (see WP:words to avoid). This article, Jones below, is not concerned primarily with theories of conspiracies, but rather with evidence of events.

14 Points of Agreement http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. If that's the same letter I read before, it's not concerned with theories of conspiracies, but not really concerned with facts, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is at least the second time you have been asked not to change the subject by shifting what someone else says. My sentence says, "evidence based" not facts. Furthermore, you are free to give a reason for your view, as I did in mine. This would stand in contrast to delivering your top down smear word, quote, "nonsense", as you say, without a trace of explanation. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would like to clarify. Perhaps you would not like to be on record denying that this paper refers to studies, data, evidence, including statements of NIST and FEMA, on virtually every page. I see over 25 citations on a pager of less than 8 pages in length. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It refers to studies, but quotes statements from NIST which clearly mean something completely different than what he says they mean. (He should get together with a banned editor specializing in ritual child abuse articles, but he's a little more subtle, in that he quotes the articles correctly, but ignores the definition section and commentary which causes it to mean something completely different.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of Jones's papers, although I'm not sure about that one, make statements which are mathematically wrong, often failing dimensional analysis. It could still be "evidence-based", but outright lying about what the evidence might mean. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jones' article still looks evidence based, since I just have your personal claim about that. The portion of your reply can take seriously is "he quotes the articles correctly, but ignores the definition section and commentary which causes it to mean something completely different." In rhetorical terms it still looks to me like vague smear attack language I remember against Paul Oneill, Richard Clark and Scott McLellan. If you have a clear analysis written up, showing specifically what you say, I am open to revising my view. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase someone with whom I disagree in general, but it seems to fit:

• In any other field, one tenth of the evidence would suffice. In this field, it seems 10 times will not suffice.

The analysis of Jones's self-published papers has been done many times, some in real peer-reviewed journals. He made a number of mistakes in the original "free-fall" calculations. The nanoparticle and pulverization calculations seem to be contradicted by the energy balance of the recent (3 years ago?) discovery of fullerenes in low-temperature combustion products. And the "tilt" and "falling within the footprint" comments seem to be incompatible with basic mechanical engineering. (I'm qualified to talk about basic mechanical engineering.)

I don't think there's been time for his apparently-not-self-published papers to be analyiszed in peer-reviewed journals with real review. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At 9Truth you ask?

Wasn't one of those peers an author of the paper?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Bentham_Open.E2.80.A6_again

Are you really asking, based on something? Or are you rhetorically insinuating it? Our discussion might benefit from something you have on that, if there is something credible on that. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, whoever listed the "peers" actually listed the authors, as someone commented later (but above my comment). I believe that was a mistake on the editor's part, whether or not it's you. I doubt that even outright frauds would list any of the authors of a paper as "peer reviewers". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I initially mistook you to be saying something else (that an editor simultaneously had a peer role in some capacity), and now I got it - merely that someone mistook who was who. Thanks for the clarify. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nren made a certain statement about a certain article. Your reply is not about a certain article. I had to ask you previously to stay on topic. I hope you are not deliberately being disruptive. This is important because several editors do far too frequently seem to shoot before looking and aiming. I notice you give an answer, and then you are asking if (not saying that) we have references for that. Instead of asking, why not give the source that informed your view? For that reason, I wonder if you are perhaps just using the discussion page to play around, or to let your personal ideology dominate. --~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaveabutt (talk • contribs) 15:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know we had a reference for "reverse scientific method", but I don't know if it's currently in the article, and I'm not entirely sure it's one we can legitimately use. So it is a question. Still, you can't expect comments contrary to the (apparent (to me, anyway)) scientific and engineering consensus that conventional controlled demolition wasn't used, and exotic (semi[1]-)controlled demolition wouldn't be adequate[2], to go unchallenged.

1. It wasn't controlled demolition; 2 buildings other than the ones destroyed were seriously damaged.
2. Unless I or Jones lost a decimal point, the energy "required" for the pulverisation was in the range of megatons of TNT equivalent. It's hard to imagine exotic chemical explosives which would have that much energy unless embedded as a significant fraction of the building skeleton. This is OR on my part, but it seems sufficient to discredit the pulverisation energy estimates unless an explanation could be provided. Mini-nukes, anyone?

As for the "thermate residue" found, normally I would accept the opinion of a nano-composite expert. However, they also denied that fullerenes could be produced in an ordinary fire, and, once people knew how to look for them, they found them everywhere. For inclusion, I think we would need some non-911 scientist clearly stating that nanoparticles cannot form in low-temperature fires.

For what it's worth, I'm a global warming skeptic; the data up to 2001 clearly didn't support the conclusion, and now that the new data appears to support exactly the same conclusion for the estimated 2100 temperature, I want an explanation why the current method produces the same result as one that was clearly flawed. Unfortunately, I can't find a reliable source that uses that argument, so it's not in the article. Yet. The nuclear winter people bother me as well, although, if accurate, that provides a solution of sorts for global warming....

I'm also not sure about HIV and AIDS; there are enough people with the symptoms, but do not test postive for HIV or HIV 2, that I consider the matter "not proven".

But I won't propose changing the articles unless I have reliable and/or scientific sources. Jones is a scientist, but so was Pauling, and his Vitamin C papers were drivel, even if they might have been correct in result. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) Ok, I am relieved you say there should be an article. Was the article you have in mind merely really a blog or informal website, perhaps unsigned, perhaps one that seems highly politicized (spin)?

2) I want editors to challenge my view. What I don't favor is editors rejecting others' views with snappy empty opinions and slogans, ones without explanation or substance. By "explanation or substance" I don't mean politicizing words like "sigh", "that's ridiculous", "you must me joking".

Otherwise, WP discussions become just a circus-of-opinions or museum-of-random-opinions. Otherwise, without substance, editors appear to copying and mimicking rhetorical tactics used by former 'professional' spin operatives.

3) I can't begin to imagine how your referring to "2 other buildings ... were seriously damaged" is a realistic and relevant way to explain why controlled demolition did not happen. There is a logical step or piece I am missing.

4) About "energy required". Truthers state say they have witnesses, and I've been given some testimony, attesting that access was quite easily possible, and so placement of exotic materials was physically possible. Perhaps so.

5) I trust many scientists' articles are "drivel" as you rightly note. However, what I need is not just such a general statement of that being possible in this instance, which I already appreciate might be possible. It might possible, or more likely, for other sources.

6) About "fullerenes". You might be right about that, and I need more info. I am a researcher through and through. How can I come to see and understand this problem? How can I come to know, as you have, that the "such and such" is possible at low temperatures? I'm sure you have a reason to point out this problem, and if the article is wrong, I welcome the credible information. It doesn't have to be "perfect" information, but just reasonably credible. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I input an addition to "Decade" because one decade is commonly said to go from, for instance, 1950 to 1959, but more accurately, according to our Gregorian calendar, to go from 1951 to 1960. The first year was AD 1, not AD 0, so the first decade went from AD 1 to AD 10.

From Wikipedia "Gregorian calendar" it states, "For dates before the year 1, unlike the proleptic Gregorian calendar used in the international standard ISO 8601, the traditional proleptic Gregorian calendar (like the Julian calendar) does not have a year 0 and instead uses the ordinal numbers 1, 2, … both for years AD and BC. Thus the traditional timeline is 2 BC, 1 BC, AD 1, and AD 2."

Yes, people commonly use the years from 1950 to 1959 as the decade of the fifties. But, according to science, isn't it really from 1951 to 1960. I was just pointing this out, and not "vandalizing" the article.

If I am wrong in these statements, please tell me.

William W. Atkins —Preceding unsigned comment added by WAAtkins (talk • contribs) 17:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia says, "This standards- or measurement-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." -- Which is just what I was trying to do. -- If you are the owner of this article, then you have the right to edit it. If you are the owner, you can, in my opinion, state your displeasure better than saying someone "vandalized' your Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WAAtkins (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you're wrong. A decade is any interval of 10 years, but there is no scientific definition of the "1950s". As I commented on your talk page, the 1950s are clearly 1950–1959, while the 196th decade of the common era may very well be 1951–1960, except that nobody uses that term. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those outline articles could be useful if reworked a bit. I think they need a more neutral and clear title like list of Kosovo subjects or such. They sure look like list articles. -- Banjeboi 13:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo, in particular, is difficult, because of the question of whether it's a country, and some of the redlinked outline articles presume it's a country. I still don't see it as useful, but only in the case of articles of disputed scope is the matter serious. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an FYI, RE is back, he recreated the extreme abuse survey page and the ritual abuse-torture page. I've fixed those but there may be more. I'm surprised the EAS page wasn't salted, considering this was the [1] [2] third or fourth time this has happened. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You reverted the article "-0" to the previous version. I wrote it, so I am curious to know why you did that? Perhaps I made a mistake somewhere that I am not aware of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.135.39 (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the areas where there were differences, the older version was more correct. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.135.39 (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lahs08 (talk · contribs) is making the same edits as the Homersimpsons, sock/puppetmaster perhaps? And shouldn't Lahs be blocked also for the same edits? Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lahs08 seems now only to be changing "was" / "will be" to "is", and some additional (possibly accidental) errors. Unless you can supply a diff showing him saying 2005 is the current year, or vandalising talk page dates, I think he deserves one more final warning. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arthur and sorry for the disturbance. I have a problem in the past few days with an spa that insists on adding information on Goldman Sachs based on a youtube citation ([3],[4]]). I already left a few warnings on the user's talkpage. I thought of contacting you because I am familiar with your work on the Alex Jones article regarding similar issues. I will monitor the situation on the article and if it deteriorates I would appreciate your assistance because I would like to avoid edit-warring with the user. Please let me know if you want to get involved, if and when the need arises. Also bear in mind that aside from the problems with the citation, there are additional problems with WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV with the proposed edit. Thank you very much. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 20:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Sir Rubin. At CT, I haven't the slightest idea what you mean by "mainstream" theory, as if you think the government reports give one theory. Which government theory refers to molten steel? Is it NIST or FEMA? Which government theory acknowledges free fall speeds? Is it US NIST or US FEMA? Which one has pancaking? Which one doesn't? Perhaps you would like to clarify which one of the conflicting agency reports is your official one. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no report, government or not, of "molten steel". There are credible reports of molten metal; although spectroscopic analysis probably would have identified whether it's primarily iron or primarily alumnimum, it apparently wasn't done, either by mainstream sources or by alternative researchers. (It could have been done by alternative researchers....) Careful analysis of videos of the molten metal could have estimated the temperature, but even that, apparently, wasn't done, either by mainstream or alternative researchers.

There are not credible reports of "free fall speeds"; analysis of videos of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 all show about half free fall speed.

Now, pancaking, appears in some mainstream analyses, but not in others. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are interested...

You are invited to join WikiProject Cannabis, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to Cannabis. You received this invitation because of your history editing articles related to the plant. The WikiProject Cannabis group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants.

I noticed your userboxes and thought you might be interested. If not, no problem! --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I performed a review of the literature about this subject that had been published from 1954 through 1970. To my surprise, there were no retractions and no denials. I was "inspired" to conduct the search by another writer from that era who had made that observation. One of the technical magazines that had published an announcement went out of business shortly afterwords.Tcisco (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entire section qualifies as original research by our standards, unless some reliable source (i.e., a publication with a reputation for accuracy (even if not for spelling)) includes it. It is interesting, but a tendancy toward publications going out of business after publication reports of successful antigravity tests is indicative of one of two things

1. A conspiracy (a rather incompetant one; a competent one would destroy the magazine before publication) to suppress the information, or
2. Selection of such information for publication is an indication the magazine was already failing.

I side with #2, but some theories consistant at low energy density with general relativity have gravitational currents at high energy density. The energy density required to get practical applications in most of those theories is much higher than is actually attainable, but there are always possibilities. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Item #1 is very speculative. Have you had any experience in classified operations? I was employed a few decades ago, with a security clearance, in a department for applied research and development. Some of the technologies I had tracked before that job had suddenly disappeared from the open publications. I discovered they were doing quite well after I received my security clearance and could access the base library. A couple of references I have cited in this article had missing library cards and no computer entries. I had located them by manually searching for them in various libraries. I will try to locate the reference that had commented on the absence of retractions. The aviation magazine that went out of business did not seem to be able to keep up with the competition. Competency wasn't the problem.Tcisco (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]