Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KillerChihuahua (talk | contribs) at 22:36, 25 February 2013 (→Request for clarification: the right link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 2010 2011 2012 2013 This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Status

TUSC token 6e69fadcf6cc3d11b5bd5144165f2991

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

discrete semiprime

Can you tell me what a discrete semiprime is? I understand that a semiprime is a natural number that is the product of two not necessarily distinct primes, but I'm not having any luck with the modifier 'discrete' which shows up on many of the number pages.

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntropyman (talk • contribs) 00:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe they are using "discrete" instead of "distinct". So they might be referring to non-square semiprimes.

If you gave links to the articles which bother you, this would be easier to diagnose and fix. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing - Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerographica (talk • contribs) 15:19, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting the recent unhelpful additions to the "Paradoxes" section of the "Perfection" article. Nihil novi (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see "Tunnel diode" on the "Talk:Perfection" page. Maurice Carbonaro is intent on reintroducing his irrelevancies into the "Perfection" article. I think it would be very damaging if he succeeded. Regards, Nihil novi (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Alan & X?

I'm not familiar with Alan's history. And at the risk of sounding like X, can you specify what guidance I was infringing on with regard to the categorization issue? Egad, I certainly don't want to engage in behavior which even slighly risks blocking! My approach with X has been one of encouragement and warning. It looks like he's a former GI, as am I -- and I hope my kicks-in-the-pants along with atta-boys will help. I've urged him to edit in areas he knows more about (e.g., military topics), offered suggestions about article improvement, and I've praised him for dropping the out-and-out insults. Your guidance for me, here or via email, is/will be appreciated. – S. Rich (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW: I searched and searched for info on commenting out the categories via an added colon. Eventually I found WP:SP. In trying to understand it, I developed a suggested revision. Please take a look. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Question

Sorry, who's Emerson?

"Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." (probably improperly) attributed to Emerson. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

RfD:Other people's money

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You recently participated in discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Other people's money. You may be interested in a discussion I have initiated at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 February 2#Other people's money. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

lgm?

I think you mistook Little green rosetta for someone else. And using the third person pronoun, when you actually meant "you", made this remark a bit confusing. E.g., X had promised not to do it again. Was this late, late night editing, or early, early pre-coffee editing? Or am I misreading? (In any event, your reminder about the promise is most helpful.) Cheers. – S. Rich (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of Choice

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of choice talk page

Arthur, it was Hugo who added the "SPECIFICO's edits" section heading, not X. And I modified it earlier IAW WP:TPO. As I know you to be most even handed, I'm sure you'll go back and fix the comment. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I was saying that the edit was typical of X, and I expected better from Hugo. However, I guess I need to clarify. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Taxable income

Arthur, the tax credits are not deducted in determining "taxable income." Taxable income is gross income less deductions. Once taxable income is determined, then a separate computation is performed: the tax rate is applied to taxable income, to determine the preliminary tax figure. The "credits" are then subtracted from the preliminary tax figure to arrive at the tax amount. Famspear (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not the way I read it....

Tax = (tax on taxable income) less tax credits

Taxable income = gross income less deductions.

Perhaps the sentences needed to be reordered, but they both needed to be there. The anon deleted the tax credits sentence entirely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You will laugh

  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No. It isn't.

Because, were 2 pi + e to have equaled 5 instead of 9, for instance, its radical would obviously not have been an almost integer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.170.29 (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi, Arthur Rubin. Could you please explain this edit summary to me? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I confused you with Xerographica. It's still the case that there is no reason to include the McAlister section, and it violates Misplaced Pages polices, but I'll have to consider whether your other edits are an improvement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I've now restored your revert except for the excessive inclusion of McAllister's opinions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the dummy-edit clarification. As for the "McAllister section", it's still there, you merely removed a clarifying single sentence from it. Your edit summary suggests that a "good argument" for removing that specific McAllister content exists, but I haven't seen it. Could you direct me to it? I also certainly haven't seen an indication that policy (or policies) have been violated; which policy? My intent is to revert the bold removal of that long-standing content pending an actual argument for removal being presented, and an actual policy violation being specified (unless I missed an already existing discussion somewhere). I see that you refer to the content as "excessive", am I to understand it's a length issue? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The McAllister paragraph is much too long, as it is, and McAllister's opinions on desired future actions, as opposed to opinions about what actually happens or happened, is much less relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for rev deleting the foul comments on my user talk page yesterday. It's much appreciated!

- MrX 17:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing at Koch Industries

I've created a new section on the Koch Industries Talk Page to discuss your disruptive edits there. If you can't or won't do that, I'll be forced to contact Administrators to help resolve this issue. Thanks. Cowicide (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I got you mixed up with another user, I also updated the Talk page. Cowicide (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

3RR warning (warning now stricken)

Your recent editing history at Koch Industries shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. . Cowicide (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate warning. 1. EW has not occurred. 2. WP:DTTR. – S. Rich (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry this warning was meant for another user, please ignore.Cowicide (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case, please strikeout the template message. It will help. – S. Rich (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, did I strike out the template tag correctly or should I do more? Cowicide (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. Assuming your permission, I will do the whole thing and modify the section heading. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

New messages

Seen — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

For explaining the Idaho referendum process in terms of the California election law, which is familiar to me. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

"dead. like always"

Where is that quote from? It's niggling at the back of my mind, and google is no help. siafu (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Answered in E-mail. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. KillerChihuahua 18:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I oppose all of the "proposed topic bans" and consider this is a case of running amok. I did use one (three letter word) in my response to the proposal to ban you from all US political articles which I hereby grant you permission to alter if it offends your sensibilities at this season. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

An RFAR has been filed

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Tea Party movement / US politics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, KillerChihuahua 06:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

abt that insertion idea

the construction of the solution tries to use insertion , there is also a data prescan but algo is not debugged n its work awfully if it is corrected/debugged , only O(n^1,9)... i think it could do better... 93.118.212.93 (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification

You have said several times that you think I misunderstand policy. Perhaps you missed where I asked you to clarify which policy you think I misunderstand, and why you think I do? Thanks in advance. KillerChihuahua 22:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)