Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:01, 4 August 2009

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 2025 . 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.

Status

To Do list (from July block)

• 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.

Concerning your DMOZ entry deletion

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)

wonder the correctness about a equation in Derivative of linear functions in Matrix calculus

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

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)

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

Lets keep things clear (911T)

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)

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-)controlled demolition wouldn't be adequate, 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)

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)

Decade

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 Misplaced Pages "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)

Also, Misplaced Pages says, "This standards- or measurement-related article is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WAAtkins (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

FWIW

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)

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)

ResearchEditor sock

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 third or fourth time this has happened. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 12:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

About "-0"

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)

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

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

Date vandals

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)

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)

Goldman Sachs

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 (,]). 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))

Which of the conflicting goverment reports is the real one?

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)

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)

WikiProject Cannabis

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)

Gravity Control Propulsion Research

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)

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)

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)

Well, I have worked on classified projects where there has been speculation in the unclassified literature, but we were directed not to search the unclassified literature, as that search might provide information which was inherently classified to the search engine, and possibly indirectly to users of the search engine. On an earlier classified project, we used Aviation Leak for data that could be used in unclassified simulations, but that project (or at least my view of it) never rose above Secret. So, I can neither confirm nor deny your speculation on my speculations. Still, regardless of accuracy, that paragraph is original research, unless a reliable source makes the specific comments.

The "escape" of the Scientific American article on RSA, and The Progressive article on nuclear bombs, suggests that the security managers couldn't hit the side of a barn, so that #1 seems quite plausible, at that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Aviation Leak and Space Mythology. I had not encountered that label. Several of my reliable references probably fall within that category.Tcisco (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Why must you keep reverting me?

Take a look at the edit history for the article Neutronium. --116.14.72.74 (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the only one. However, my reason is that antihydrogen is only element "-1" if neutronium and antineutronium are conflated, and Nt is not an isotope, even if it it were quasi-stable (half life >10 s). Nt probably shouldn't be there, either, but there seems a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What's your thinking here?

This is confusing to me. How could there possibly be a time when it's okay to state unequivocally "X is a Jew/Muslim/Christian/gay/bi" when there's not enough support for a category? Categories are far less visible than article text, so I don't understand your reasoning here. Unitanode 21:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"X is a Jew" allows you to check reference 1 to see how reliable it may be, while categories do not have any such checks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

My change to the policy doesn't affect "X is a Jew/Muslim/Christian" in the least. It just requires that the "" be a reference to the article subject specifically stating that s/he is, in fact, what the article says they are. This seems to be clearly implicit in the policy regarding categories, but I've recently encountered an editor who's trying to insert "X is a Jew/Muslim/Christian" with the reference actually only being to various people CLAIMING that X is such based only on paternal parentage. This is unacceptable, per WP:BLPCAT, and my change was only to make it explicit instead of just implicit. Unitanode 21:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that as what you're saying in the policy. Perhaps you should rephrase so as to make clear that those assertions must be properly sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

<---undent

I'm taking the liberty of c-and-p-ing my text here, so you can see what I mean:

Statements in the body of an article which would effectively put the article subject in a given category (i.e. "John Doe is a Muslim", "John Doe is gay", etc.) are also forbidden, except given the above two scenarios.

This is simply saying that if you want to make a definitive statement about a person's religion or sexuality in the article body, it needs to be explicitly stated by the person in the source referenced, just as is required of categorizations in the text immediately preceding where I inserted my addition. Unless this is explicitly stated as part of the BLPCAT policy, there are those who will try to circumvent this by posting refs that are simply other people claiming "X" as a "member of the tribe", so-to-speak. Of course, this also violates WP:SYNTH, but making the relevant portion of BLP policy more explicit seemed a simpler way to go. Unitanode 22:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't see any way that your statement can be read as not prohibiting "John Doe is a Muslim" unless:

1. John Doe self-identifies as Muslim, and
2. specifies both that John Doe is a Muslim and that it is important to his notability.

BLP requires only that unenquivocally state that John Doe is a Muslim, and another source specifies that his religion is notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to simply type out what I was trying to place into BLPCAT. Unless (A) subject of article has clearly self-identified their religion or gender; and/or (B) it's part of the reason they're notable, then there should be not definitive statements in article text identifying them with a particular religious belief or sexual orientation. Perhaps you could help me phrase my addition more clearly to express this? Unitanode 22:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

First, it needs discussion, even if it were clearly appropriate. Also, perhaps it should be in that section of WP:BLP, even so. However, the phrasing I would use is something convoluted like:

Referring to the religion or sexual orientation of a living person, unless:

(A) the subject of the article has self-identified their religion or gender preferences, and we have an identifiable source for that statement, or

(B) it's part of the reason they're notable, and the statement is tagged with a reference to a reliable source,

it should not appear.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I could certainly live with that. It's just that there is an editor who refuses to see that BLPCAT's precluding of categories without reliable sourcing should apply even MORESO to actual article text. I thought that perhaps making it redundantly clear that article text is more visible (and thus more sensitive) than categories was necessary. Unitanode 02:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hoagland article

Hi Arthur, wikipedia is about a neutral presentation of material from many angles, so the reader can set his own opinion. Opinions of editors should be transparent, agree?

Hoagland deserves an unbiased, respectful presentation of himself and his body of work, likewise the response from his serious opponents. I quote Hoagland to my best ability and try to present his cause unbiased. Your and others subjectivity reflect in words like "manipulation" and "opinion-mill" and revert of his actual focus, his "hyperdimensional nonsense". To me, the article radiates an urge to discredit Hoagland, which I find disrespectful, and it is you, the administrator, who I feel must be a just and decent advocate of neutrality. Hoagland states on many occasions that his theories are not supported by mainstream scientists.

Please, let us cooperate. I hope you can update yourself on Hoaglands work and maintain objectivity. If you think I'm biased or unjust, let me know.

Dubiten (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is "manipulation" and "hyperdimensional nonsense". I didn't like "opinion-mill", but I've used up my 3RR reverting your unsourced "examined" and "research". However, "hyperdimensional" shouldn't be in the lead unless it really is his sole focus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I am currently trying to help the editors in the Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) topic area move away from POV pushing and personal commentary. (Please note: Talk:Falun Gong#Topic area review.) You are an editor that I believe can help facilitate this change. I am looking for some uninvolved people with experience and savvy to become involved in the editorial process. A review of the article and associated discussion, in a style similar to a good article review or broad RfC response, would be a good first step and very helpful. However, some leadership in discussion and editing as a whole would be invaluable and sincerely appreciated. This can cover a very broad range including (but not limited to) identifying article flaws, keeping conversation focused on content, reporting disruptive editors, making proposed compromises, boldly correcting errors, and so forth. If you are willing to help out, please look things over and provide your feedback on the Falun Gong talk page. Essentially, we need some experienced editors to put things on track. Any assistance in this regard is gratefully welcomed. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)