Jump to content

User talk:ArnoldReinhold/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

STU-III etc.

Hello, I've just bumped into your work on STU-III, Fortezza and elsewhere; thanks, great work, and Welcome to Wikipedia! You've just written two articles that I wanted to read ;-) If you're interested in writing more on cryptography, you might find Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptography helpful. Hope to see you around, anyway. — Matt 22:03, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I had looked at the Cryptography Project page and saw STU-III was "wanted." Not sure if this is the right way to reply. I've created an account for myself: ArnoldReinhold (copied from User talk:66.31.41.253)
Yep, I think that's the right way to reply. An easy way to sign your posts is to use a string of "~"'s; three puts your username (~~~), while four adds the date too (~~~~). Are you the Arnold Reinhold of DiceWare fame? — Matt 03:51, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's me. Sorry for the delay in replying. I thought when i checked "Remember my password" i'd be loggged in automagically. Guess not.

Note about WikiReader Cryptography

Hi, just a quick note to let you know about the project for a WikiReader in Cryptography; we're running an "Article a Day" scheme to polish up articles to a reasonable standard: Template:WikiReaderCryptographyAOTD. — Matt 01:31, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi there, I noticed your edits to the railway-related articles! Good to have another editor in that area, whether you have a passing interest or are an out-and-out "trainspotter" :-) Just some handy info:

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. You can introduce yourself on the new users page.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or contributing: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too. If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!


You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.


zoney ♣ talk 15:11, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome and tips. I consider myself more of a raifan and advocate for public transportation.""

Category merger

Thanks very much for the merger of Train stations and railway stations, but . . . the consensus was to merge them into railway stations, rather than train stations! I might get around to fixing this at some later stage. At any rate, your effort is still appreciated. Lacrimosus 21:44, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have looked, but there were a lot more entries under Train stations, so I took that as both a vote and the path of least resistance." --agr 02:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

KW-26

Nice article on KW-26 — thanks! — Matt 09:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

EC-121

Hi there - sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but we're not able to use material from the USAF Museum website. Although hosted on a .mil server, it's explicitly not public domain (see here).

After seeing the great work you've done on cryptography topics, I'm glad to see you're interested in creating articles on aircraft as well. Please check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft for the project that attempts to co-ordinate these efforts, and in particular, the page content guidelines. Cheers --Rlandmann 12:12, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I assumed it was a US Government publication. I've posted a stub per instructions based on my general knowledge, not the USAF Museum site. --agr 13:41, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

KL-7

Hi, I've dropped a note at Talk:KL-7. Thanks, by the way, for your recent contribs. I've especially enjoyed NSA encryption systems. — Matt 12:46, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Route 128 Station

Hello ArnoldReinhold, article on Route 128 Station is very useful and well written. It was shocking to find it listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. I voted to keep it, and I think Wikipedia is the better for articles like it. Fg2 11:09, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Reply notification

Hi! I've replied at Talk:Bombe. — Matt 16:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Board game Risk

Hey, I just stumbled across this category. I listed it on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, not for deletion, but for renaming. More standard disambiguation, I think, would be Category:Risk (game), as the article is Risk (game). I just wanted to let you know because I wouldn't normally list a category right after it's been created. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:59, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Here is a copy of what I posted to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion: I'm the one who came up with the name. I couldn't find a clear policy nor an example of a category that used the parentheses disambiguation convention used for articles. The closest I could find in Wikipedia:Categorization is "Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories. Example: "Wikipedia policy precedents and examples", not "Precedents and examples" (a sub-category of "Wikipedia policies and guidelines")." If parentheses disambiguation is in fact the way to do it, I think Risk (game) should be the choice to match the article. I'd be happy to make the corrections, based on whatever is the consensus. --agr 01:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You are right to point out that the parenthetical model is not as widely used for categories. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are Category:Georgia (U.S. state) and Category:Georgia (country). Maybe we can think of something better. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 15:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Category has been renamed to Category:Risk (game). RedWolf 05:44, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Acoustic cryptanalysis

Thanks for starting this. I'm looking forward to reading Asonov and Agrawal's paper; it's a topic that's crossed my mind a few times last year, and it's nice to see some research emerge in the open community. (My personal conspiracy theory is that the SIGINT agencies have been up on this sort of thing for quite some time...) I thought I'd also point you to the new "project digest", which notes the revision you did at Password. Thanks again! — Matt Crypto 22:28, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. I like the project digest. It suggests to me a new kind of page I have't seen before on Wikipedia, a photo index. I'm thinking of a page, maybe called Cryptography photo index, that would have thumbnails, maybe not everything, but at least one per article containing a photo or diagram. with the thumbnails linked to the article. --agr 19:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is surprisingly difficult to get Wikipedia to link an image to an article rather than to the image description page, but other than that, I'd probably be able to coerce one of my scripts to do something along these lines (User:Matt Crypto/CryptoStats/ArticleHits included images from all the articles). — Matt Crypto
It's a nice report. What time frame do those hit counts represent? By the way, the template PD-USGov-NSA does not actually say that the item is in the public domain as a work of the US Government. Perhaps you should add the text from PD-USGov. Also, I would prefer to say that the work came from a publicly available source, rather than it is believed not to be classified. Other than public availability and lack of markings to the contrary, we have no insight as to what is classified and what isn't.--agr 22:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The hits are for a single month, October 2004. That month, "Enigma machine" was featured on the Main Page, hence the disproportionate skew towards that article and various related topics. — Matt Crypto 03:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

road-stub?

Thanks for writing some articles on the MBTA stations. One minor thing - you should probably tag them {{rail-stub}} rather than {{road-stub}}. --SPUI (talk) 12:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, with the navingational boxes at the bottom, I created them a while back, but I fear they're overly complex and inflexible. I've more recently been working with the NYC Subway - DeKalb Avenue and 42nd Street-Grand Central are two examples of stations with navboxes that I feel are easier to deal with. Something similar (but less complicated, due to the boringness of Boston's subway) could be done here. Any comments? --SPUI (talk) 12:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Susvolans has come up with the even better {{metro-stub}}. I need a course in remedial stub. I kind of like the nav boxes on the MBTA system with the splash of color. Indicating the terminus stations is more important in Boston since that is how many lines are refered to. In some ways, Boston is less boring in some ways because there is more inermodalism. It would be nice to include that in the navigation boxes. I tried using the templates you made, but didn't know what to do at the termini (see what I did at Lechmere (MBTA station)) and how th handle the Green Line branches. I'm happy to trust your judgement on this. --agr 15:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

welcome

AR, (legendary intials those, any connection to Villchur?)

I've noticed that we've been tripping over each other at several crypto corner articles, and I've been glad to see your contributions, for which thanks. And now that you've made it formal and joined the WikiProject, welcome.

You have surely found that we have one of the more active organizers and structure builders on the whole Wiki in Matt -- you'll find it hard to keep up. But trying builds a better WP, so it's worth it. We're making progress, I think a lot of it, and we may get where I've been trying to noodge the crypto corner eventually.

Welcome again. ww 20:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't realized there was a place to fromally sign up before. :) I agree that it's getting to be a good collection of information on cyrptography. --agr 23:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Latitude and longitude

Do you know of any good way to find this accurately without trial and error? I typically use Terraserver, but it is often a few blocks off. --SPUI (talk) 17:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was going to ask you the same question. I had to use trial and error on 190th St. It's near where I grew up, so I know it well. I might also do 181 and 175 and the GW Bridge Bus Station using the 190th article as a template and will need the coordinates. I'll look around and report back. --agr 18:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge on Water Law and Water Rights

You put a merge notice on Water law and Water rights about a month ago, and since then there have been only two comments on the Water rights talk page, both against a merger. I'd appreciate it if you could tell us why you think they should be merged, or remove the merge notice. Thanks, Toiyabe 22:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

They seemed to be two short articles on basicly the same subject, one with a European view point and the other with a U.S. view point. If people want to develop the articles separately, I'm happy to withdraw my merge suggestion, but the articles should at least reference each other (and water quality as one of the comments points out. ) --agr 02:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Morin surface

>>Do you know of, or have any interest in creating, a GFDL illustration of Morin surface? I'd like one for the article on Bernard Morin and maybe Smale's paradox--agr 15:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)<<

Yes, indeed: glad you asked. I have uploaded an image and added it unto the Bernard Morin article. I made that image some time ago. I still haven't made a complete version with "passage barriers", but I have the blue print and the code so maybe I'll get back into this. --AugPi 04:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Computer law & spyware

Hi! I noticed that you created the category Category:Computer law. If this is a subject on which you have particular knowledge, I wonder if you'd be willing to review the law section on the article Spyware? Thanks! --FOo 01:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

AN/CYZ-10

Hi Arnold,

see this diff. At the Administor's noticeboard it has been suggested that you cite the sources you have for that article to make sure it really isn't classified information. Could you do that? -- grm_wnr Esc 17:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. --agr 20:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Satellite

Hi, why do you remove Italy from the list? I think San Marco 1 weren't launched with the aid of others country. (sorry for my english) --SγωΩηΣ tαlk 16:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It's my understanding that San Marco 1 used U.S. launch vehicle, the Scout. See http://www.univ-perp.fr/fuseurop/sanma_e.htm If you have different information, please let me know.--agr 16:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Fitzmas

Thanks for noting the CNET story in the debate about deleting Fitzmas. It's a valuable addition to the discussion, as a good indication that the article should be kept. I've also added a reference to it on Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source 2005. There's a similar entry in the September 21-30 section -- a London Times article that cites a person's Wikipedia article as evidence of his importance. JamesMLane 10:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. --agr 14:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

causality and QM

Hi,

I checked out your own site. Interesting. You've been doing computer stuff forever, compared to me. I built an EZ-80 around when the Z-80 first came out, (wire wrap on perf board), and later put together a couple of "Big Board" computers (later to become the first Xerox 820s (I have the circuit boards to prove it), Kaypros, and DEC Robins). But anyway I'm writing because of the comments you put up on the causality article. I agree with what you said. But Ingham, the person who inserted that stuff, is a bright guy who reminds me of lots of my physics major cohorts who were inarticulate when you took calculus out of the picture. I suspect that he may actually have something to say, and if that is the case it should not be lost because some editors of Wikipedia are impatient and zap out anything that seems questionable to them. On the other hand I have spent 20-30 fruitless hours trying to get a separate line on what he is talking about. Others tell me it is vanilla QM stuff, but if that is the case he has even more of a problem communicating than I had recognized. I put a link to the "diff" that gives his original article after your remarks on the discussion page for the causality article. If you have time, please take a look at it and see whether it might have some "coded" sense to it. I don't like to see new contributors chewed to pieces, but that is what has happened in the last few days in response to the request for deletion that was put against his article.

Thanks. P0M 03:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I've responded at Talk:Determinism#Determinism and QM --agr 17:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


And thanks again, for making about first substantive contribution I can remember. Unfortunately it may be that Ingham has gotten so frustrated that he has stopped communicating. Please ignore the following if it doesn't pique your interest. I've wasted far too much time on it already.
Here is the central point of his article, back before I started mucking around with it -- together with my comments of today:

In the measurement process, new particles, such as light are brought in to perform the measurement. If, at first, these measuring particles are described quantum mechanically, the description remains deterministic and no probabilities arise. However to get the information into a notebook or (non-quantum) computer, it must be brought to the human scale where maintaining phase coherence is impossible.

This language seems subject to many different interpretations. He may have something in mind like the Heisenberg's_microscope thought experiment. If so, he is saying that a gamma-ray photon and an electron and a microscope with a piece of unexposed photographic film at the place where the image is focused are all in a closed box, that one has "quantum mechanically described" them, and that when the photon hits the electron and bounces to where it shows up on the film then everything is perfectly "deterministic, and no probabilities arise." (Carrying this idea back to the article on causality where this stuff all got started, that would presumably mean that what happens when one bounces a gamma ray off an electron is all deterministically causal, no dice throwing God involved.) But the experimenter has "the information", presumably because s/he had the original "quantum mechanically described" data and can calculate from there. Now it sounds like he is saying that the next step is that this known data must be "brought up to the human scale" -- which is going to sound to the average well-informed reader as though the experimenter does something to the "mystical data" (my mystified attempt to describe it) to make it understandable by non-physicist or non-mystic readers. He gives a clue to what he is probably really talking about by mentioning the loss of phase coherence, but I've never been able to get him to clarify this passage. I think that means that he believes that physicists (and maybe physicians) can understand it and that the average reader can be properly ignored, but I'm probably being cynical, which is why I've resisted saying any of this so directly before.

Because the classical approximation does not conform to the uncertainty principle, it contains information that the quantum system, which does conform, cannot supply. This non-physical information is generated randomly.

To me this sounds like either of two things that we talked about freely as undergraduates trying to get the answers in the back of the book: (1) waving the magic wand, or (2) supplying the fudge factor. The classical approximation (to what? to the real answer?) contains information. But it must really contain "information" that doesn't exist because it has to be created by a random number generator of some kind. It's almost as though he thinks the experimenter has replaced Einstein's dice-throwing God.
If classical physics were an adequate model for this situation, one would fire gamma ray photons in fairly rapid sequence that would hopefully light up any electron that happened to drift into the microscope's field of view, occasionally that would happen, and one could track the electron as it drifted across the microscope's field of view, judging its x and y coordinates by successive black spots on the developed negative, and perhaps even getting the z coordinates by some sort of auto-focus device on the microscope that would keep a log of how it racked the microscope in and out. To me, the photo-chemical reactions that occur in the photographic film count as physical events and as providing information about the real world, but I am not sure what Ingham would say. In the classical version I would not say that these spots are "generated randomly." I wonder if Ingham thinks they are "generated randomly" under a correct QM description. But I am grasping at straws.

In addition phase information in the quantum description cannot be represented classically, and is lost.

I guess I am a helpless literalist, but to me this statement fits in the general category of the magician who says, "Now you see it, now you don't." I think Ingham is anthropomorphizing terribly. I imagine that he is trying to express something entirely different, but what he says I must interpret as there being "phase information" sitting there in the quantum description of the experiment that he has thusfar not even really described, and then for the benefit of poor mortals somebody come along and puts it into classical terms. (Like what, x, y, z, t...?) Then having done that the phase information is dumped into some quantum waste dump somewhere in the void.

One of Messiah's examples is measuring the position of an electron with light. If the light's wave function is not know and included in the system wave function, the predictions are of probabilities, because the light photons exchange unknown amounts of momentum with the electron.

I think I found Messiah's description of Heisenberg's microscope, I, 143, and it is perfectly straightforward and comprehensible, even to me. It has nothing to do with the mystification in Ingham's account.
I am wondering if I am missing something in the above quotation. How much is he assuming is not known about the photon? Its frequency? Its direction of travel from source to electron? Conceivably one could calculate an impact for a gamma photon on a straight-line course and actually have a bank shot by an ultraviolet photon. I think that if so little were certain I would call any calculation a guess not a probabilistic prediction.
Anyway, if the contrary were the case, if the photon's wave function were known, would that make the predictions not probabilistic? To me he appears to be saying that if one knew enough about the photon, the electron, and the rest of the apparatus, then one could predict in a non-probabilistic way where the photons would show up on the detection screen (photographic film). He sounds more like Bohm than Messiah to me.

So, it is the requirement for extra information, beyond what is specified by the uncertainty principle, in a classical description that is responsible for the probabilities.

It could be that all he is saying is that if Δx * Δp >|= h, then when we state a value for x or for p we have to say something like x±d or p±d'. But I don't think so.

From this point of view, this information does not describe reality.

I suppose it is perfectly obvious to Ingham what "this information" is supposed to refer to. Whatever it is, is he saying that empirical observations of the form "In this run of the one at a time electrons through a double slit experiment, hits were recorded at p1,p2,....pn" do not describe reality? According to my limited command of the English language, it would seem so.

The experimenter is simply "asking more from one poor little electron than it has".

i.e., "An electron does not have a position and we insist on giving it a position"?

A Cal Tech grad student, or maybe it was U Cal Berkeley, told me his stuff all makes perfect sense, so hopefully it is my English that is at fault -- or maybe not. P0M 18:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


Just to be clear -- the real question is how, if Ingham has a point and knows what he is talking about, should what he is trying to say be put into words that a bright high school student can understand? (It doesn't have to be comprehensible to me, just to the average well-informed reader.) P0M 18:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the short answer to your question is that we have to rely on the Wikipedia process. If someone has a clearer explanation, it can go in one of the articles on QM. If other editors don't think the explanation is superior, it will be edited out. Note what it says at the bottom of the edit page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited and redistributed by others, do not submit it." If Mr. Ingham is discouraged by this, there are other places to publish his views. For example, I have a screed on Bell's inequality on my home page [1] that I probably would not submit to Wikipedia. --agr 19:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Jerome H. Lemelson

Thanks for your last edit in this article! --Edcolins 20:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:cryptography

Category:cryptography is getting too big. I'd suggest a project to move articles to sub categories where possible and maybe add some categories as necessary. Perhaps trim the text on the category page too.--agr 18:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree it needs sorting out. The thing that puts me off is that you can't edit categories directly; you have to change tags on each individual article, which makes it cumbersome to maintain. Maybe there are bots which can help? — Matt Crypto 11:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

MacBook Pro

I just checked out your recent edit to MacBook Pro. You state that the DVD burner is dual-layer read but only single-layer write. I have no firm evidence one way or another but it was my impression that the drive is actually a dual-layer writer. Are you sure that it is actually only single-layer? --Yamla 22:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, for now. I just talked to Apple at MacWorld. See my comments in the discussion page.--agr 22:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Very interesting and a little surprising. Maybe I'll sit out this round and pick up the next round when they've brought back some of the features. Oh, who am I kidding? If I had the money now, my order would already be in. I've never had the need for dual layer, not with the media as expensive as it currently is.  :) --Yamla 22:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I got the sense that they accepted these limitations for now to get the product out for a MacWorld announcement. They way one Apple person put it to me was that that the MacBook specs "do not commit" to the ability to write dual layer. Another said these are "first generation drives".--agr 14:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Classified information

Thank you. I've responded at talk:classified information. — Instantnood 23:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


Milky Way Edits

Yea, I knew that when I wrote it, but was in a hurry and wanted to get something in as a place holder. Look again now to see if that is better and let me know. Thanks. WilliamKF 17:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Try that. WilliamKF 20:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Transportation in New York City

Hello Arnold - I noticed your work on transport-related articles in New York. Transportation in New York City has been nominated to be a US Collaboration of the Week. Check it out and if you like it, please vote for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:USCOTW We need all the votes we can get! Wv235 23:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Diceware

Could you take a look at the diceware page? There has been a neutrality challenge, to which I responded by toning down one comment. There is also a section added a while back that I think is incorrect. I marked as disputed, with an explanation on the talk page. I am reluctant to edit it however as I clearly have a personal interest in the matter. I think it would be best if someone else maintained this page. --agr 13:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As you've no doubt seen by now, I've edited it some. I respect your integrity in avoiding editing the article yourself, but by all means add to the talk page liberally! — Matt Crypto 16:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for your help.--agr 15:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Arnold!

I just saw your comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptography and got curios who you are. So I clicked some links and got very happy when I discovered you are the CipherSaber guy! So I just wanted to pop by and say hi and tell you I like CipherSaber very much. I used to use it as an example for my customers/students when I taught crypto in the industry here in Sweden back in 1998-2000 and I still use it as a nice soft start for any programmer that wants to learn crypto. --David Göthberg 17:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Glad you find it helpful. Fell free to edit the article.--agr 15:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Page name for temperature articles

To avoid flip-flopping between 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'Fahrenheit' or 'degree Celsius' and 'Celsius', I propose that we have a discussion on which we want. I see you have contributed on units of measurement, please express your opinion at Talk:Units of measurement. Thanks. bobblewik 22:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

  1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
  2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
  3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! bd2412 T 04:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Colonization of Mercury

Wow -- sources in less than four hours after I put up the tag! Thanks so much! --M@rēino 05:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:System 3 punch card.jpg

"Zorch it's a System 3" ? 68.39.174.238 09:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I was at this demo and I wanted to try out the keypunch and I had to type something... --agr 10:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

My lapse at punch card thickness

I just tapped the wrong buttons when coming up with 0.018 mm for 0.007 inch.

Obviously, 0.007*25.4 gives 0.18 mm.

Thanks for the prompt correction. --194.226.235.251 19:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --agr 23:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:SPACE!

Hi ArnoldReinhold, thanks for joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Colonization!

Have fun with it.

Wikimania

And good to see you signed up for help with Wikimania... are you interested in helping with anything in particular? +sj + 22:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I live in Cambridge. What would do you need done here?--agr 14:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

1130

Hey Arnold - the fr link does not show?? IBM 1130 page KymFarnik 07:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's seems ok today.--agr 15:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

IGES

Hello, Arnold - Thnx fer starting the IGES page ... it's provided me with beau coup opportunities to avoid doing Other Things the past few days. :-) Have a better one! -=DAH=- 2006-04-11 22:43 (EDT)

Thanks, where did you work on IGES?--agr 15:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I wrote IGES translators for Applicon (back in the MDSI days), and supervised the off-site contractors who maintained the Computervision translators. I was also the IPO IGES Project Manager for Version 5.0 back in the 90s. How did you come to write the initial article? Dennette 03:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I worked at Computervision from 1975 through 1979 and was involved in the early meetings that started IGES. I was responsible for coming up the name (I still have the notebook).--agr 03:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks for improved phrase

AR, Your phrasing improved my attempt at password. Thanks. But I still think the point made is questionable; not inaccurate -- just somehow off topic. Poor narrative or something. Still pondering it. ww 13:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you are concerned about. Hashed password storage is quite common and the hashes are often sent over the Internet for authentication purposes, giving an attacker an easy way to check large numbers of guesses. So it is still a big problem.--agr 15:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for fixing up my bad edit here. I just realized today the mistake I made.

Cedars 08:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

BIRTH OF AN UNWANTED IBM COMPUTER

I attempted to send the HTML file, but got the following error: 

 ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- 
 <reinhold@world.std.com>

Is there some other way I can send it to you? -- RTC 15:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

areinhold {yeoldatsign} alum.mit.edu--agr 15:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Long talk page

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! bd2412 T 23:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Norm Coleman

I did not violate the 3RR; I did not make four reverts. By the way, I am not 141.153.114.88, the anon user who reverted the page today. 172 | Talk 04:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

And I've been limiting myself to 3 all these years. This stuff does get a bit childish.--agr 04:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes reverts are necessary because there is a clear conflict between correct edits and incorrect edits, and the interests of the encyclopedia stand above the standard process guidelines. I am a professional historian, trained in circumscribing relevant information from an always endless array of data. I have no doubt that the story on Wikipedia is an irrelevant self-reference, perhaps interesting trivia to Wikipedia editors, but irrelevant to people interested in reading a serious encyclopedia article on a member of the U.S. Senate. 172 | Talk 04:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The 3RR rule makes it quite clear that substantive edits, even if they are obviously wrong, are not exempt from the policy. It is designed to prevent edit wars, which is what seems to have happened here. I would point out that the section in question is titled "Coleman in the media" and there is no dispute that this story was widely covered at the time. It think it can easily be distinguished from the "Senator Opens Shopping Center" type of story. Wikipedia is now a major cultural phenomenon. The introduction of the semi-protection policy made the front page (top of column one) in the New York Times this Saturday. It is a common truism that the best test of ethics is what you do when you think no one is watching. I wouldn't vote against the guy in a general election over this, but in a primary where there were two candidates I liked, it might well sway my vote. This deserves to be part of the record. I'd like to move this discussion to the Coleman talk page, if that's ok with you.--agr 11:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikisoure restorations

I had a problem with one of the titles. Left a note at your Wikisouce talk page.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've listed the ones that might conceivably be of interest on the Math project page for discussion. --agr 18:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I'm not much of a wikipedia user so I'm not sure how to edit stuff. I saw you added some info on expansion plans to NYC mass transit. There is a large MTA proposal to expand Metro-North. It's not actually within NYC (it would be a line from Sullivan Airport to White Plains to Stamford, Conn.) but it is the MTA. I can't find an article on it anywhere in Wikipedia. There is a link to the feasibility study. Do you think this is worth having anything about? I'm not sure what the project's current status is. http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/mta/planning/ths/trans_hudson_study.htm

Just a note of thanks for Diceware

I came across your (off-wiki) Diceware page some years ago, and have used it ever since. It was the first sensible instructions on making a password that I'd ever seen. Much thanks. If I can be of any assistance on-wiki, please let me know. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. --agr 18:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

USS Edson

The source was 1969 in aviation. See: Edson, Boston and Point Dume incident Vietnam, 17 June 1969)). It was missing on the Friendly fire page and on USS Edson (DD-946). I added it. - Pernambuco 03:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I found an Australian site about the incident here: [2]. USS Boston was a heavy cruiser decommissioned in 1970. Dan D. Ric 07:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The Australian site says it happened in 1968. I changed the Edson and friendly fire articles and added the HMAS Hobart to the later. Any reason not to fix the 1969 in aviation article (move it to 1968 in aviation)?--agr 10:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Columns 73-80 were reserved ...

Don't agree, left some comments in the talk page for the article, hope you will look at them.

Also looked at your home page. I sat for many hours at a 650 console, it was a "personal computer". Read ""Silk & Cyanide" some years ago - enjoyed it and it was a surprise. Your comment about the British wanting to appear stupid to the Germans - was just reading in one of the Enigma books where, early on, Donitz was concerned about code security (they had read a British naval code message about the radio direction finding of two submarines meeting - but the submarines hadn't actually met yet!) Similar logic to yours actually followed - if the British were so dumb about codes that Germans could read their naval code, then they couldn't possibly read Enigma) tooold 21:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've changed the punch card article.--agr 04:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

plug-board control panel

Looking at plug-board, "control panel" is shown there as an alternate term for "plug-board" so using the two together reads like "I saw a cat cat". IBM manuals all use "control panel" so "[[plug-board | control panel]]" might be more appropriate than "[[plug-board]] control panel". And plug-board is likely wrong in saying the terms are alternatives, I'll have to do some research. "plug-board" described a physical object, "control panel" describes function. Thus "control panel", describing their function and the term IBM used, seemes more likely the term to use, even with a hidden link to plug-board. 69.106.232.37 05:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

More: I think of "computer" as short for "internally stored program computer". What early internally stored program computer had it operation directed/controlled/... by a control panel? (Not fair to count the control panels in card reader/punches, printers)

The Columbia Computing History, which seems your source, is not consistent on removable control panels. On the Control Panel page it says 1928. On the Tabulator page it says Type 3-S 192x had removable control panels, and it says the Type 4 was introduced in 1928. It would seem that either the 1928 date is wrong or the tabulator type is wrong. Possible to ask the Columbia person?

"Proper wiring of a control panel required a knowledge of the electromechanical design and timing of each machine type." Definitely not! The control panel presents an abstract machine and you have to know that abstract machine and its timing. How that abstract machine is implemented doesn't matter. In that respect, it's no different that driving a car, or writing a computer program. I wired interesting 407 panels for the IBM Service Bureau and for the US Army Personnel Research Office without ever knowing the electromechanical design of the 407. I knew there were relays, cams, and a lot of other stuff, but I had no idea about the design - only what what was presented to me on the control panel.

"holes or hubs" Not sure what you mean, that hubs is an alternate word for holes? that panels have hubs or they have holes? Some control panels have holes, some don't. As I recall, when I changed "holes" to "hubs" (because "holes" was wrong for many panels) I looked at the IBM manuals and they consistently used "hub".

thanks, 69.106.232.37 06:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Still more: when I left the "1906 Earthquake" comment, I was only hinting for a source. I've added the source. 69.106.232.37 06:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

IBM's writing in the 50's and 60s was admirably precise and consistent in style, but IBM often developed their own terminology using words differently from everyone else. Computers did not have memory, according to IBM, they had "storage." Control panel is another example. To most people, control panel has a different meaning, a work surface with meters, knobs and switches. Same with "hub." Hubs were holes on all the machines i saw. What were the exceptions? Wikipedia has a style too. We write for a general audience and if you want to use IBM jargon, it needs to be explained.
From the article IBM was the largest supplier of unit record equipment was IBM and this article largely reflects IBM practice and terminology. (That sentence needs help) That sentence has been in the article for a long time and makes sense. IBM terminology is the terminology most people know, relates to the sources (manuals) most commonly available.
control panel: "to most people" but this article for a specific technology. A pie is something you eat, or something left by a cow. Depends.
I'm all for using IBM terminology, but we need to explain it to our readers. I doubt there are many people left at IBM who would know what a control panel hub meant.--agr
Hubs: The 407 was 1949, with holes. 402, 077, 552 had the other kind of panel: panel was solid, with contacts on the back for all connections. The jumpers were inserted into contacts on the front side. Probably a change after WWII. And IBM could have changed the control panel style in machines still being manufactured without changing model numbers. I had made a number of edits to accomodate both styles.
The 402 panel in the photo has holes. But I'll take your word for it that there was another style. The solution is to include a few sentences explaining what 'hub' meant in this context. --agr
ENIAC and other early computers were wired. To define computers as stored program devices cuts out much of the early history. And the use of plug boards in IBM 700/7000 I/O devices deserves mention, even if just to point out that their wiring was almost never changed.
This is really related to a question I asked recently. What is it that should be included in this article? Never mind the one-of-a-kind monsters like ENIAC, many (lots of?) IBM 650s were only card machines (no tapes,no disks). So we should include the 650s, right? Ah, I asked the question in relation to the UNIVAC 1005. And if we include those machines, then we should include the IBM System/3, right? I think the scope of the article should be Unit Record Processing, 1890-1945. It's about using those machines, something we haven't even gotten to yet - so far we've only been defining the machines -- to do useful work. The article needs a scope statment -- at the beginning! I advocate that ENIAC, 650s, 1005s, computer system components, ... are out-of-scope.
I'd been meaning to respond, but hadn't gotten around to it. In general when we are talking about technology eras, there are always examples of stuff that crosses the boundaries. Often they are quite interesting and worth a mention because they illustrate that the way forward is not always so clear at the time. In the case of the 1005, vs 650, I think the key issue is the unit record model, which was centered on the punch card as the primary storage medium. While it is true that many 650s were card-only, that was primarily due to cost. They were mostly used for calculation and punch card output was the cheapest option. Often the cards were simply listed on a nearby 407 and then thrown away. Some may have been used in the EAM work flow for calculations too complex for 407s, say insurance rate computations. But i believe the 650 was clearly part of the computer age. The 1005, however was a niche product marketed to organizations who were still using punch cards as the primary storage medium and did not intend to change, but wanted something better than a 407. 1401's by contrast were intended to move customers to mag tape as the primary storage medium. That was the big paradigm shift. After that punch cards were simply a data entry tool. So I'd include the 1005, with an explanation, but not the 650.--agr 16:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
As for the knowledge needed to wire control panels, you know more than I do. I only had a brief experience with them. But there was a specialized body of knowledge that deserves mention, involving the timing of the machine. You could not just plug wires into any pair of holes. Feel free to come up with better language than I used.
I had deleted an earlier sentence as being only the hard way to say "You have to know what you are doing". Isn't it obvious that if the control panel directs the machine, or the power plant, or whatever, that you have to know what you are doing?
Never assume anything is obvious. Explain. Remember most of our readers do not remember when homes did not have computers.--agr
Finally, as to 1928, your point is well taken and we should change it to "the 1920s" if we can't get clarification.--agr 11:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you wrote "Type 3.. 1920s". If you delete the Type 3... part then the sentence has to be correct (its either the model or the date that is wrong, we don't know which, and you are already safe with the date).
OK.
Thanks for tolerating me 69.106.232.37 15:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It's great to have someone with more knowledge working on these articles. Just remember who we are writing for. --agr 16:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Electric Accounting Machines (EAM)

Was a commonly used term. Noticed that you 1st changed it to "Electronic ....", then edits swiching between "Electronic" and "Unit record". Can we put it back, as it was, please. (I'll try to list a source here) Thanks, 69.106.232.37 15:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree Electric is correct (I just watched the film loop from the ext refs). My other concern was changing the name from one sentence to the next implies we are talking about two different things. Again, we need to be clear.--agr 16:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

IBM 650, more

(I'd rather keep adding at the bottom than inserting comments that might be overlooked).

See [3]. Announced in 1953, tapes and 407 added in 1955. The original 650 was a pure unit record machine.

From the unit record equipment article: Data processing consisted of feeding decks of punch cards through the various machines in a carefully choreographed progression. (did you write that?) That sentence captures what I think the article should be about, what would provide value to readers. How did we do it before computers? Computers erased that "choreographed flow"; computers just read it in and produced the answers. Unit record equipment/processing/accounting is interesting because of that flow between individual machines, each machine capable of only a simple task, sort, merge, sum & print. How that accomplished all that it did is amazing.

There is no value to a list of machines that read or punch cards, might just as well see the list of IBM Products.

btw, did you see my recent addition to punched card, that in 1937 IBM was producing 5 to 10 million cards --- a day!

thanks again 69.106.232.37 18:35, 13 October 2006

[4] page 11 has the old style contral panel. Zoom in, there are labels in the circle figure. And just above the circle, the text describes each hub as making contact. 69.106.232.37 18:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Scope is, for me, the overriding question.

I agree that the "choreographed flow" of punch cards is what the unit record era is all about and that is what the unit record equipment article should be about. While I am sure there were exceptions, i don't believe most 650s were part of that choreographed flow. see [5]. Tape and printing options were available not that long after the 650's introduction. Off-line 407s were available for printing card decks from the beginning. Remember that in most organization that leased one, a 650 was the first computer anyone had ever had access to and people were just learning what they could do. As users realized the power of computers, applications mushroomed. Note the picture at the IBM 650 apps page of an FAA installation in 1959 that had disk drives and remote terminals. The successors to the 650, the 1620 and the 1130 were also available in card-only versions. No one would think of them as unit record machines. By contrast, the 1005 was specifically intended to be inserted into the "choreographed flow" of cards. Thanks for the addition on '37 card production. That should help readers understand that punch cards were a major technology by then, --agr 19:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
We've a curious kind of agreement, neither of us thinks the 650 should be included, we disagree as to why. If we agree on "choreographed flow", and it seems we might, that excludes the one-of-a-kind monsters and computer system component card/read punches. And we can both list the obvious machines that should be included: keypunches, sorters, collators, tabulators, calculators. We can probably agree to include card to/from punched paper tape, even card data transceivers. It's almost IBM machines 001 through 649, less the 305!
How about:
This article describes unit record equipment, and its use, of the kind whose development began with Herman Hollerith in the 1880s and continued into the 1950s, that were generally available. These machines were electro-mechanical, built with relays, gears, and cams. Beginning in the 1940s electronic components were introduced into some calculators; those calculators have been included where the calculator's program was external (on a control panel or card(CPC)).
"generally available" to exclude all one-of-a-kind, special (crypto) machines, etc. That draft excludes Data Transceivers, thats ok with me - they were a very late development anyway. Or they can be included by specific statement. 69.106.232.37 23:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Minor edit to draft 69.106.232.37 01:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should clarify which article we are talking about. For the unit record equipment article, I agree that the choreographed flow of punch cards defines the subject. I don't see a need for adding the text you propose (though i do think this entire discussion should be moved to Talk:unit record equipment.) The plug-board article is another matter and i don't see any reason not to mention their use in early computers and I/O devices. It makes the article more complete and adds interest and does not add significant bulk.--agr 04:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
You're easy to agree with, a nice skill you have. Yes, other than unit record machines used control panels and their inclusion in that article should be easy.
My draft was my attempt to define the boundary as to what is, and what is not, to be included in the unit record equipment article. It's ok for you & I to agree that an original, card only, 650 doesn't belong but what about the next person in the Wiki world that wants to add the 650 or the System/3 or whatever his favorite machine? I really want to bound it at gears, cam, & relays. The transition machines, the 650, the Univac 1005, etc, might well fit within the choreographed flow, but they aren't needed. I want to point the article at 1920s, 30s, 40s data processing. For me, unit record equipment is the equipment of that time. Defining unit record equipment as any machine that reads/punches cards adds no value -- just call them punched card machines.
An alternate approach might be to define Unit Record Accounting (it may have been called that, there was also EDPM - Electric Data Processing Machines, ADP Automatic Data Processing). That is, define something, then state that the machines used to do that are unit record equiment!
Do you think the article needs to be bounded? Suggestions as to how?
thanks again.69.106.232.37 08:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
You have a good point that if stuff is left out someone will eventually try to add it. There is no infallible way to bound an article on Wikipedia. Pretty much everything works by consensus. Probably the best thing to do here is to add a section on the transition to computers. --agr 11:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This article caught my eye History of computing hardware (1960s-present) -- BOUNDED. Further, in getting Punched Card and Keypunch to their current state, I had moved everything about them out of Unit Record Equipement - my style is to get it said once, and correct. That left holes in unit record, comments made about it not being an outline, etc., that you & others had to fill in given the current document structure. But those fill-ins don't add any knowldege about the topics. How's this for a plan: do sorters, tabulators, reproduce & summary punch, collators, statistical, ... one article each (like Columbia Univ Computing History). These articles are like the keypunch article, complete including all models, refrence manuals, everything. For example, the current 513, 514, 519 articles get combined into reproduce & summary punch, only redirects left in their place. Now there is no machine detail left for the unit record equipement article. Change (move) it to Unit Record Data Processing, 1890-1949. So the machines are bounded by article titles and the Unit Record ... article text is about the choreographed flow, bounded by dates. 69.106.232.37 07:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish. Wikipedia articles are intended to be read by ordinary readers. They should tell a story. Its normal for an article to provide a summary of a relevant subject and then link to a more detailed article on the subject itself. thus the World War II article will discuss Pearl harbor, even though there is a lengthly article on the subject. History of computing hardware (1960s-present) is something of an exception. There is too much material for a single article on the history of computing so it was continued to a second article and using a date as a separation is natural. In general you can't expect to play traffic cop on Wikipedia, deciding what goes and what stays. If there is enough material on specific types of unit record equipment, we should have separate articles. Even so there should be summary info in the main URE article. I also see no need for a 1949 cutoff date. People who want to know about URE should get the whole story in one place.--23:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

CharlieCard

AR -- Thanks for incorporating the new MBTA info into the CharlieCard article today; I know I should have done that in addition to deleting the straight quote from the website, but I didn't have the time. Geoff.green 03:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Would be nice if Wikipedia had a naming convention for Computer hardware articles

In particular, for the case of only one vendor, VENDOR or trademak, then MODEL. Like IBM 604 or UNIVAC LARC (which I just changed, it was just LARC). When moving I make a comment about conforming names (in the LARC case it was the only UNIVAC computer without a leading UNIVAC) but I feel somewhat vunerable to reverts and wouldn't be able to do much about them.

In cases with multiple vendors, such as VAX (DEC VAX ?, COMPAQ VAX ??, HP VAX ???) allow anything; any of the vendors or none. I think just VAX is the current article. Thanks 69.106.232.37 07:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:NAME: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." So VAX is probably best left as is. There are areas where special naming conventions have been established. I just found Wikipedia:WikiProject Early computers which seems to be inactive. I think the discussions we are having should be moved there. Maybe we can spark some interest. --agr 02:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

hello Arnold

I really forgive you for your canceling my great work of editing the overwiew chapter of "trigonometry", originally intended to sum up - in few lines - the whole basic trigonmetry of the plane (at its conceptual level) - icluding the reader's ability to easily conclude (by arithmetic tools only) all of the possible trigonometric identities. Again, I forgive you, but why did you do that with mistakes and inaccuracies?

No doubt, you have improved my old version by adding some important information, mainly. by mentioning the spherical trigonometry (my old version hinted at that, when - on purpose - I avoided mentioning the word "euclidian", and by mentioning the word "traditionally").

However, you have done it with too many mistakes or inaccuracies, e.g:

1. Your fatally imperfect definition for the cosine (remember that every side in the triangle is adjacent to more than one angle).

2. Your little mistake of spelling, when you wrote "these function" at the end of the section beginning with the words "the reciprocals".

3. Your misleading sentence at the first section (before the "contents"), where you have written: "particularly triangles in a plane where one angle is 90 degrees", which may lead the reader to the wrong conclusion that the words "where one angle" refer to the word "plane" adjecent to them, not to the far word "triangle".

4. Your inaccuracy at the first section (before the "contents"), where (on one hand) you have mentioned the spherical trigonometry (thank you), but (on the other hand) you have omitted the crucial sentence (included in my original version) which leads to the great difference between the geometric treat and the trigonometric treat - regarding the right triangles. Really, the reader has to be aware of this crucial difference when he reads the overview chapter about trigonometry!

5. Your decision to omit the word "real" when referring to the angles, and to omit the word "positive" when referring to the hypotenuse (I have worked much on these two little words for achieving my original goal - see above in my first section to you).

6. Your (legitimate) decision (on one hand) to mention the (quite marginal) cosecant etc., but (on the other hand) to omit the (much more useful fruitful fertile productive ) cis function!

7. Your decision to omit from my overview the trigonometric laws, e.g. law of sines etc.

I will never claim that my version is perfect, nor that i'ts clean of mistakes. But I prefer my old more accurate version, despite its little heaviness, than your shorter version which is full of (little) proplems.

I hope that you soon repair what have to be repaired! If possible - please do that today (if you can).

Have a wonderful day, and receive a smile.

Eliko.

I have corrected items 1, 2 and 3. Thank you. I am sorry but I do not agree with the rest. Wikipedia is written for a general audience and introductory material should be written at a level appropriate for them. Your version was not. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#General_Comment_about_Math_articles_from_a_non-mathematician. More technical matters are covered later in the article and are not needed in the overview.--agr 11:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, hello Arnold

Unfortunately, you have not corrected all of the mistakes: e.g:

1. In my third comment I discussed the words: "these function". these two words had appeared twice in the same section: once at its beginning, and later - at its end. You have corrected the first time, not the second one!

2. Another mistake - having still remained in your current version - regards my first comment about the cosine: Your definition ignores the fact that every leg is adjacent to more than one angle! The word "shorter" you've added before the word "leg" - did not solve the problem! Also pay attention to the clumsiness of that definition: "ratio of the shorter leg adjacent to the angle to the hypotenuse"... Hadn't you paid attention to the problem?

3. I'm sure you did not understand my fourth comment. Every definition must hint at the uniqueness of the defined term. So, just as you can't define "Trigonometry" as the topic dealing with "things" - because it's not the uniqueness of "Trigonometry" - since also Biology deals with "things", so you can't define "Trigonometry" as the topic dealing with "right triangles" - because it's not the uniqueness of "Trigonometry" - since also Geometry deals with "right triangles".

4. I'm also sure you did not figure out my fifth comment. Adding the words "real" and "positive" - adds almost nothing to the text, but adds very much to the accuracy, and mainly enables one to define the trigonometric functions for negative angles too, as well as for angles bigger than 90 degrees, by letting one pay attention to the possibilty of negative legs, as well as to the impossibility of negative hypotenuse. I add just two words to the text, and gain very much for the completeness of the definition of the trigonometric functions! Do you really think most of readers of "Trigonometry" in wikipedia are not aware of the negative numbers? Or of angles bigger than 90 degrees? This is an intelligent audience, not as you have hinted! Note that it took me about two hours of deep thought after having decided to add (in my version) these two little words "real" and "positive". How much did it take you to decide to cancel them?

5. I'm also sure you haven't comprehended my sixth comment. When one reads the mathematical topics in wikipedia (like "homomorphism", "topology", "euler's formulas", etc.) one realizes that their authers have assumed their readers have a mathematical knowledge above that of the regular audience. Also the readers of "trigonometry" must have a mathematical knowledge above that of the regular audience. If you think they must know about the marginal function of cosecant - at the early phase of reading the overview chapter, then I think that at this early phase they must know also about cis function, because this fruitful function, with its non-geometrical definition (canceled by you), summerizes the whole planar trigonometry, thus enabling to receive at once all of the trigonometric identities. This crucial fact, having a philosophical significance, must be exhibited at the introduction - defining trigonometry, not at the technical chapters mentioned later.

6. By the way, It took me about 60 hours of deep thought - to edit my version of the overview chapter. A considerable part of that time was invested for deciding what should be included and what should be excluded. How much did it take you to edit your version, and how much did it take you to decide what in my version should be canceled?

7. Again, have a good day, and get my second smile 4 you.

Eliko.

I have edited the article in response to your points as wells as comments on the article's talk page. However, I must disagree with your suggestion that "the readers of 'trigonometry' must have a mathematical knowledge above that of the regular audience." The other examples your give homomorphism, topology, euler's formulas, etc.) are more advanced, college-level, topics, and even with those articles we should still strive to make the article introductions accessible to general readers. Trigonometry, however is a more elementary subject, something generally taught at the secondary school level. It is essential that we make the entire article as easy to follow for general readers as possible.
If you have no objections, I would like to move this entire discussion to the Talk:Trigonometry page, so other can participate. --agr 15:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Encryption

Arnold, when you reverted obvious vandalism in Encryption, you also reverted my "machines such as the Bombe were invented" which is historically correct. Try clicking on Bombe. I'm restoring it. Greensburger 04:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my mistake. I was trying to undo several layers of edits and had made a mental note not to change yours, but I slipped up. --agr 04:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Centeris

I saw that you deleted some of the information on the Centeris Wiki. As our page wasn't intended as an advertisement or any form of it I am interested in knowing how you came to the conclusion of this? Software companies such as Microsoft have various sections as well as Samba which describes their product. You erased the fact that we created partnerships with Microsoft, IBM, HP, Red Hat, and Novell as well as the VC partners. If this is a user based encyclopedia this is simply information about the company, NOT advertising. Please explain.

I didn't delete anything, I just added a cleanup tag. See [6] Others made appropriate changes that made the article read less like advertising copy. Please take a look at Wikipedia policies on the matter.--agr 00:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Homotopy groups of spheres

Good point, its done. I've been working a bit on the history, but I'm missing some and there is some confusion over who actually introduced the notion of a homotopy group. Any help apreciated. The articles also on Wikipedia:Good articles/Review at the moment. --Salix alba (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your Apple I changes

Please note that I reverted your changes to Apple I as they described drawbacks that were relevant for the period. No computer back then had internet access. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Pittenger (talk • contribs)

Which hobbyist computer at the time had graphics or sound? If they existed, they should be cited. Also please sign comments.--agr 22:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about your tongue image

Hi! I found the picture of a tongue on one of your pages (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Tongue.agr.jpg). I work for a retail cigar company, and we're designing our next catalog, and this image is perfect for one of our pages. Can we have permission to use it? Thanks! Galsmiley

You have my permission.--agr 16:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

User warnings

Hi. Regarding this edit: When leaving warnings for users, it's generally best to substitute the templates. For example, instead of using {{test}}, use {{subst:test}}. Cheers, Chovain 12:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

knot theory topics

Hi Arnold, what do you suppose is a good set of topics for the knot theory article? The question is deliberately vague to encourage some interesting thoughts. You can respond here or leave a comment at User_talk:C S/todo/draft7. Thanks. --C S (Talk) 14:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd briefly describe knot polynomials and skein relations, with links to main articles, of course. Perhaps exhibit one or two knot polynomials for a trefoil knot. I'd love to see a table of diagrams of the first N knots. Maybe something about links and braids. Maybe a def of alternating knots. Also I found the comment "these algorithms use significantly many steps" a bit opaque. I'd like to see more about computability results. In general this will be the intro page for people who are curious and having many concrete examples is good. --agr 11:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The knot table poses something of a dilemma. The nice tables are all copyrighted, e.g. Rolfsen knot table, while the old ones not under copyright by Tait, et al, not only use an outdated organizing scheme but use dots to distinguish between over and undercrossings (not as nice as the modern convention of inserting breaks). The possiblities are to get someone like Rolfsen to release the table under appropriate licensing or to create a table. But the latter seems like a great effort I can't afford. --C S (Talk) 20:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
No one says you have to do everything, of course. The Tait chart would be a start and would have historical interest. I couldn't find it on-line. I think it would be reasonable to ask permission to use illustrations of the knots up to, say, 6 crossings from one of the modern sites. We could offer to include a link to their page as attribution. As a separate matter, we should also include http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A002863 --agr 03:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Arnold. I don't know how much you've been keeping up on image copyright issues, but the rules have gotten much stricter. It's not enough that we get permission to use it, the image(s) must be released under a "free" license such as GFDL or certain Commons licenses. Also, the reason I mentioned Rolfsen is that a number of the sites actually use a modified version of the Rolfsen table, so they don't own the copyright to it. Rolfsen doesn't seem to mind, but obviously, for Wikipedia, we want to make sure we're following the policies all the way. The Tait-Little tables are probably old enough to use though. --C S (Talk) 08:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
By permission, I mean under free license. I've gotten a few images released that way. I agree we can't use anything less. --agr 12:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Cryptography categories

I see that you removed the cryptography category from Japanese naval codes. I followed up the helpful comment and I see why - a potentially overlarge category (a problem that occurs elsewhere). My problems are that 1) the dispersal of articles amongst many categories might make the whole topic too scattered and 2) the category titles, while correct, are potentially discouraging to a browser or someone with a casual interest (like me!). "Cryptanalytic devices", for example, is not a user friendly name and I wonder if we can do better. Folks at 137 19:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The good news is the Wikipedia has a lot of material on Cryptography; the bad new is we have too many articles for a single category. So I think it is important to keep articles that have a natural sub category ot of the top category. If you have better ideas for sub category names, feel free to suggest them. It's a bit of a pain to change them, but if there is a good enough reason, we should. "Historical events in cryptography" was recently changed to "History of cryptography" for example. It's the right place for stuff like Japanese naval codes.--agr 20:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

NSA controversy update

Heather Wilson is reported as having sort of said Gonzales was lying about having briefed the intel committees about a FISC judge giving the NSA program the go-ahead on January 10th, 2007. I've noticed your interest in these matters, so I'm dumping this link here: Talk:NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy#FISC_Judge_settles_with_DoJ - Metarhyme 07:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I had already updated the terrorist surveillance program article, but not this one. Thanks for bring it to my attention. --agr 12:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Apple Campus - Too Much Information

I see you reverted my edit. The point was, This is a article about the Apple Corporation. There are lots of interesting things to write about this company, but the coordinates for the Campus, company, or whatever isn't really one of them. It's trivial. It's a slippery slope: if you put this, why not disclose the shade of paint on the roof of the factory also? At the end of the day, an enclyclopaedia is supposed to filter down the mass of the world's information to useful summary information, or it becomes a meaningless. I won't revert it back, but would be grateful if you would consider doing so. ElectricRay 17:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It is common on Wikipedia to include geographic coordinates when a location is given. There are thousands of examples. Go to Template:coor and click What links here. Apple's campus, on Infinite Loop Drive is quite famous and the coordinates provide a link to an aerial view for those who may wish to see what it looks like. It is easy enough to skip over the information if you find it uninteresting. Others do not.--agr 18:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
With respect, where they're used elsewhere is beside the point. Coordinates might be interesting and useful in certain circumstances (undoubtedly thousands of them). Here, they're not. Anyhow, have it your way. ElectricRay 19:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I think geographic coordinates are appropriate whereever a specific location is mentioned. They allow the reader to find that location in the increasing variety of geographic services available in the Internet. I've moved the Apple coordinates to the Headquarters section of the article. I hope that is an acceptable compromise.--agr 21:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Commuter Rail Cite

Arnold, do you have any other references calling the MBTA Commuter Rail the 'Purple Line'? The one you have listed reads like a blog. Neo16287 05:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think a blog is relavant since it shows the term is used. But here are a bunch from a google search on "purple line boston" (leaving out the pages that derive from Wikipedia):

There are many more. The usage is pretty common.--agr 05:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Arnold. When I had posed a cite request I was hoping for a cite from somebody like MBTA, or another established organization, since having grown up in the Boston area, I myself have never heard anybody refer to the commuter rail as such around me, and have only heard horror stories from friends who have tourists ask them where the purple line or the purple train is. Neo16287 06:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the MBTA uses the term "purple line", but they do paint all their commuter rail rolling stock purple and the public does use the term as the cites above all show.--agr 13:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not contesting the term isn't used. I've just never heard anybody use the term around me before. And I am aware of the paint scheme. I have taken the CR many times in my life (who wants to park in Boston on a weekday?), so I'm aware of that fact. Neo16287 14:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Boston

I noticed in your explanation for your vote to oppose the requested move of Boston, Massachusetts to Boston that you said there is no reason to make an exception. Do you not agree that the world famous city in Massachusetts is unquestionably the dominant usage of the name Boston in the English speaking world? Isn't disambiguating it using the comma convention implying incorrectly that it is not the dominant usage? Why convey such misinformation about common usage in Wikipedia? Just curious... Thanks. --Serge 17:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The city comma state convention is widely used in the United States. I live in the Boston area and "Boston, Massachusetts" seems quite natural to me. As I indicated in my comments, there are good justifications on both sides. The reason for having a guideline and sticking to it is to prevent having this argument over every city page. --agr 17:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Your name

Sorry about that, Arnold! --Serge 16:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No, problem! It seems amusing given the topic. --agr 17:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Rijndael

Why did you undo (without any comment) my correction to the constant term in the Rijndael affine tranformation? I looked it up in the FIPS standard and I believe I am correct. Besides I computed some entries of the S matrix with the original constant term and the new constant term. The old one gives the wrong results. I explained this on the discussion page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.196.107.235 (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

My apologies. I've encountered several incidents lately where anonymous users just change numbers with no valid reason. You didn't include an edit summary in your first edit, but I should have checked the talk page anyhow. Thanks for catching the error and making the correction (twice) and I hope you'll continue contributing to Wikipedia.--agr 12:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

helping Slam

Hi Arnold, SlamDiego claims that you understands his third solution present in the lead of the St Petersburg paradox article. Do you really? If that is the case would you please consider to help him to incorporate that solution as a section in the body of the article? As it stands now it's all very unclear in the article what this solution is all about. The idea lacks a reference and is not mentioned anywhere except as a part of a sentence in the lead of the article. Slam seems to be incapable, or at least needing some help, writing such a section. Thanks in advance! iNic 05:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Enough of the sly insults. I have made it plain why the expansion will not come from me; it has nothing to do with capability and everything to do with finding your behavior inexcusable. —SlamDiego 06:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm up to my eyebrows in work at the moment, but I'm willing to give it a try. Please give me a couple of days and I'll respond on the talk page. Meanwhile, maybe everyone could calm down a bit?--agr 12:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, great! Take your time. iNic 14:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
“Take your time.” Haha! I guess that the deletion game is at an end. Good! —SlamDiego 23:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Arnold! I saw what you did. :-) iNic 03:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Summary

As a possible aid, a couple of days ago I added a sort of summary to the St Pete talk page. I don't know that you will find anything in it that helps, but I at least hope that it won't hurt. (If iNic annotates it to make it unreadable, then just look at the old version.) —SlamDiego 01:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Apple Inc.

A request for mediation for a dispute regarding Apple, Inc. has been posted on Mediation Cabal. You can see the full listing at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-20 Apple Inc.. You have been listed as an involved party to the issue. I am offering my time and services to assist with this issue. Please let me know if you are willing to accept my offer for mediation, I have posted a notice on Talk:Apple Inc., please reply there. Thank you! Arkyan &#149; (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ken Foree

Thank you for your third opinion on the disagreement about the image used for the article on Ken Foree. However, I would also appreciate your opinion and support on the verbal harassment I am recieving from the editors I am in disagreement with. If you could help me convince them on Talk:Ken Foree that their conduct has not been appropriate it would be very much appreciated. --84.68.126.146 20:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


And what of your harassment of us? You made a a huge fuss over nothing, the license was shown to you over and over, and yet you still kept at it. Then you post that it's over on one page, and come here to complain about it. Are you done yet? Because I certainly am. 75.82.3.135 05:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


User is now accusing others of being me. [7], [8] 75.82.3.135 01:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is that everyone just stop exchanging comments for a few days and let things calm down. I've found myself too involved in edit conflicts more than once and I know how upsetting they can get. I've found letting things drop for a while really helps. Please give it a try. --agr 02:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
No no, that's not what I meant: the issue's already been resolved now thanks to you establishing consensus. But I just wanted to see if you agreed with me that the editors that I am in disagreement with did not conduct themselves appropriately throughout said disagreement; violating several civility policies in what I believe was an attempt to make me look bad in order to prevent me having a legitimate hand in the editing of the article. --84.68.126.146 21:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind, but I think I'll refrain from giving opinions on conduct. I gotten overheated in too many edit disputes of my own to pass judgement. In my experience, the best thing to do once the substance of a dispute is settled is to reflect on how i could have handled things differently and then move on. There is little to be gained by rehashing what happened. --agr 02:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Understood. I just didn't want this to happen again, seeing how zealous these editors are over this article. --84.68.126.146 17:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again Arnold for you time and input, sorry this has expanded as it has, I was only trying to provided factual information with a relatively decent photo for Mr.Foree's article, and it has been blown into something far larger, my sincere apologies for that. Your time and comments are appreciated, I will do my best to follow in that suggestion and see what the next few days bring about. :) DC 03:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Plame affair/CIA leak scandal

could you please vote again on a preference for the article name on the talk page? your input could very much help to reach a consensus. thanks!!Anthonymendoza 20:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-20 Topics in ufology

This case has been opened, please see the case page at [9]. You may want to assist or contribute. I think you were only on the periphery of this conflict. Thank you! JodyB 14:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Arnold

Go back and see what you have deleted. you deleted more than one citation and you also deleted the image. Please put them back. EnviroGranny 02:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the previous edit you reverted had trimmed the section in question to what was supported by reliable sources. You were told self-published web sites should not be cited. The image, in particular, has no reliable source that currently ties it to sprites. The best that can be said about it, based on reliable sources, is that someone once thought it possibly showed a sprite but NASA concluded it didn't. That is not enough to include it in Wikipedia.--agr 09:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Trigonometry revert

Generally, the copy-edit was alright but there still exists a few grammatical errors in the article and it's still too concise and un-explanatory for those who are introduced to the topic; I actually edited the article after someone had told me they found that particular part of the article somewhat unhelpful after printing it off, but it was during the late hour after several over-running sessions, which left me somewhat exhausted and without lunch nor dinner.

I would generally prefer if there weren't a "simple introduction" but rather just a concise one which covers the topic from start to finish. Again, some of the grammar is a bit misleading; "These ratios are described by the following trigonometric functions of the known angle:" -- the ratios __are__ the trigonometric functions, and i really wanted to explain the whole "ground-up" method of explanation, rather than the "here you are" form, but I see some of my own edit was a bit misleading/inaccurate in parts, due to lack of coffee.

Please, in future, redress the balance by noting reversions in the talk page. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 21:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll accept lack of coffee as a reason, but the explanatory text added was pretty garbled. [10] I'm all for helping beginners, but there is a limit as to haw far we can go, given how many different audiences we address. And there is a WikiBook on Trig available. I do think it is good to include an intro that does not get into the technical details for the reader who just wants to know what the subject is about.--agr 02:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)--agr 02:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but if they're not explained then it's difficult for that to occur -- the wikibook is alright, but it's not an excuse to tell readers to go over to wikibooks as the wikipedia article should be well-written too. I generally added the cleanup, which i feel is still required, because the text has a very unusual touch to it "such as the examples above" etc. These are useless when someone edits the article to include new text below the trigonometric functions (also missing cosecant, secant and cotangent) because it links to nothing.. similarly "Trigonometry was probably invented for the purposes of astronomy." doesn't really sound encyclopaedic, nor does "There are an enormous number of applications of trigonometry and trigonometric function". ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 06:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Those are good points and there is plenty of room for improvement in the article. Just be sure to drink your coffee.--agr 13:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I popped by Starbucks on the way. Besides, i'm not editing late this evening :-) No work to mark, i'm all good :-) Please make further discussion towards the Talk:Trigonometry, so we can discuss an article format. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 16:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

On Khayyám, Hyperboloids, and Detente

Hi, regarding our recent disputes over at hyperbolic geometry: I suppose there is no point starting an edit war over this. Thanks for providing the reference. A reliable source would be better, particularly considering the fact that it isn't entirely standard to claim that Khayyam essentially originated hyperbolic geometry. I've noticed a rather unsettling trend of Khayyam being introduced at inappropriate places in History sections, so my policy with regard to him is if it ain't referenced, delete it. One editor over at algebraic geometry made it seem as though the Persians and Arabs invented the subject in the 11th century, which (in my opinion) is unfounded rubbish. Another editor tried to work it in to geometric algebra. (But, I suspect that editor hadn't bothered to read the article first.) Anyway, apparently there is some anecdotal webidence that Khayyam did have some ideas close to the origins of the subject of hyperbolic geometry. But, if it's all the same, a printed source would be nice, and preferably one detailing his precise contribution to the subject. I know, he invented the Saccheri quadrilateral and all that. But why is his work noteworthy as opposed to that of Proclus, for instance?

Final remark: Yes you were right that the link you provided [11] wasn't a Wikipedia mirror. Only part of it was, though it was the part which prominently mentioned Khayyam. Silly rabbit 00:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Final final remark: According to my sources Nasîr-Eddîn's translations of Euclid did influence Saccheri directly (Kline (1972); Boyer and Merzbach (1991); although there is no mention of Khayyam in connection with hyperbolic geometry in either) so some residual Khayyam influence may have snuck in secondhand. But without a clear account of his contribution, it's impossible to assess whether it belongs in the article or not. Silly rabbit 00:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you google "khayyam quarilateral" you will get some accounts of his contribution[12]
[13]. Let's face it the history section is extremely weak and misleading. Somebody attempted to improve it by adding Khayyam. People like Legendre are omitted (Legendre duplicated many of Saccheri's results, as the latter's work wasn't even that famous!). The solution is not to remove content. It is to improve and extend the history section. Perhaps a good tip on what to include as a starting point to the noteworthy early contributors is at [14].--C S (Talk) 01:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I have been making some attempts at improving the overall history at algebraic geometry, but as I have said I've found many more questionable unreferenced mentions of Khayyam on multiple geometry pages. I may have jumpted the gun here. Silly rabbit 01:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I can understand. Although I am sympathetic to those who don't like the historical injustices in the status quo history, unfortunately some Wikipedia editors can be overzealous and indiscriminate in the promotion of certain agendas. However, in this case, I think a good case exists for Khayyam being acknowledged as one of the early scholars attempting to prove the parallel postulate. The claims here are certainly not as drastic as claiming he is the "inventor" of hyperbolic geometry or anything like that. --C S (Talk) 02:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, hopefully everybody is aware that there is a more extensive history section at non-Euclidean geometry, although the pre-Bolya etc. contributions are neglected there also. --C S (Talk) 01:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Besides the Google books link I gave above, I know Dave Henderson's books should have a detailed accounting of Khayyam's work. --C S (Talk) 01:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning out the additional logarithm topics article

Hello! I noticed you were a contributor to the Additional logarithm topics article and I've posted on the talk page a suggestion that I believe would help clean up the encyclopedia. Currently it's just a hodgepodge of subjects, many of them covered elsewhere. Would you mind checking it out and adding your comments or suggestions on the talk page? Thanks. Ed H | talk 02:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a lot to add to the discussion. The article should probably be deleted after any useful bits are salvaged and moved elsewhere.--agr 14:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Operations security

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Operations security, by Night Gyr, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Operations security fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

need deletion to move here


To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Operations security, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Operations security itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 05:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Punched card

Nice edit, thanks for the help. tooold 12:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

A few requests

Things that I can't/shouldn't do myself, I think.

1. ASSIST (IBM) This article has nothing to do with IBM; it's about some software that happens to run on some IBM compatible machines. It is the only non-IBM page that shows up in a google intitle:IBM search. Could you move this page to something else (the IBM is likely just a disambiguation) and then delete.

2. WebSphere MQ is the only 'category:IBM WebSphere' article not prefixed IBM. I can't move the page, either because IBM WebSphere MQ already has a history or for some other reason. Would appreciate your moving it to IBM WebSphere MQ

3.There are two articles

  • IBM System/34, 36 System Support Program
  • IBM System/34,36 System Support Product

It looks like (to me) someone used an editor last year to move the bulk of the text from "...product" to "...program". Thus one article has the text, the other has most of the history. I've done things as bad, but I'm slowly learning. "...Program" is the correct name. I assume that Wiki would like to have the text and history reassembled. Would appreciate your doing that and deleting the other article.

4.There is a category 'Operating systems by owner' that has only 3 entries. That category is categorized 'Operating systems'. I'd like the 'Operating systems by owner' deleted, the three entries categories changed to 'Operating system". I can make the 3 category change smyself, I could even make a redirect for the category, but I'd rather have the category deleted - believing from my less than 1 year experience that Wiki (at least for computers) is 'over-organized'. This change will make the 'Operating systems" category more useful, with all vendors displayed instead of being split between the two categories.

5.Speaking of 'over-organized', there is a disambiguation for "IBM Building". And for only two buildings! Absurd, just delete it.

As always, appreciate your help. tooold 18:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your confidence, but I am not an admin and I think your can do these things yourself. Here are my suggestions:
1. Move the article to ASSIST (computing). Leave Assist (IBM) as a redirect. Redirects don't cost anything and should not show up on Google. Fix ASSIST link.
2. Go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and follow the instructions for a move request. (That is all I can do too.)
3. Integrate the text from the Product page into the Program page and then turn the Product page into a redirect.
4. Move everything out of Operating systems by owner cat as you proposed, then list Operating systems by owner at WP:CfD with the explanation you gave me.
5. I'd leave this one alone There are likely more IBM buildings that should be added. It's not worth the bother to delete.--agr 19:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

History of cryptography

[15]: I am not sure how a regular spy mission gone bad had contributed to the history of cryptography. Should every spy ship, listening post, tampered cable and what not get included in the category? Pavel Vozenilek 12:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If they are involved in Sigint and are notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, sure. See USS Pueblo and Room 641A, for example. Note that the NSA's official report on the USS Liberty incident is part of their "United States Cryptologic History" series. --agr 13:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Should I add SMS Magdeburg (definitely more important for cryptography then a skirmish) and dozen of other articles from the WW1 era? Would such a bloat make Wikipedia better?
There's a guideline for categorisation WP:CAT#Guidelines: An article will often be in several categories. Restraint should be used as categories become less effective the more there are on any given article.
A tag based system that is hoped to help with this problem is being developed for MediaWiki but until then I think it would be better to follow the guideline as much as possible. Pavel Vozenilek 15:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd never heard of the SMS Magdeburg before, but it definitely belongs and I've added it. That is one of the main uses of categories, to direct user's attention to related articles they might not otherwise be aware of. From the guideline: "Categories ... help users find information, even if they don't know that it exists or what it's called." If you really know of a dozen WW I articles related to cryptography, then we should create a sub category on Cryptography in World War I and put them there. That would be very valuable, in my opinion. --agr 16:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

1983 WOW and amps ma mw volts etc

Wow 1983!! I was [a kid, actual age omitted] and my family had an Apple II+ computer. I didn't get on BBS's until about 1989-1990 and Mac Classic (the one piece box with the 9" b/w screen) zterm/zmodem at 1200baud hehe. Anyway about the following page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Volt&action=edit&section=4 Could you or someone knowledgeabler *grin* add to the amp(ere), volt, and watt/milliwatt wiki pages and make analogy to water flow for sake of obfuscation? Thanks just wondering. Vid2vid 23:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There already is mention on the volt page and a long article on hydraulic analogy. I added that article to the see also section of Ampere, electric current and ohms law. Not sure what else you have in mind here.--agr 13:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

WCRB must survive as a classical station

Except for the detractors who live in the Boston metropolitan area, ignore them. This is the only classical music station in Eastern and Central Massachuetts, and also people depending on the strong signal, wherever they live, outside of Boston.

Citation needed.

The earlier "educational" FM stations to began broadcasting classical music is WFIU in Bloomington in 1950? (No one knows for sure) KANU-FM in Lawrence, Kansas in 1952, WOSU-FM in Columbus in the 1950s (rebroadcast (WOSU-AM?) and WGUC in Cinncinnati in 1960. - I am not sure about WOI-FM in Ames/Des Moines and WGBH in Boston in the earlier years. --4.160.216.108 02:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding RfC, Need a statement

Hi, I'm sorry to drag you back into this mess which you have been a great help with, but as a previous contributor who has been involved in this dispute I would appreciate it if you have the time, if you could place a standalone statement in Talk:Waterboarding#RfC, as we have a new POV pusher; User:Bellowed is defying consensus and misrepresenting the situation in insisting that someone of note says waterboarding is not torture (as opposed to saying it is acceptable in some circumstances). 24.7.91.244 20:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS revert

Hi. Regarding this edit, Wikipedia:Manual of Style is "a guideline on Wikipedia... it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense". Please do not revert whole compound edits on sight, on the basis of what you perceive as a MoS violation. Incidentally I can find no mention in WP:MOS that registered trademarks should not be quoted verbatim, even if they do use capital letters. Please be more considerate, and if you think you can improve an article, please do so rather than just reverting other people's efforts wholesale and for trivial reasons. Incidentally, the update you reverted was posted because of a typing error - hitting 'return' too soon. The real one would have followed a few seconds later were it not for your lightning action which caused me a series of edit conflicts.

Sorry if I messed up an on-going edit. These things happen. However, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) is quite clear on the issue.--agr 04:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:USRD help

Recently seeing your work on NYC streets, I and the people at WP:USRD are in need of some full-time road editors. Notify me if you wish to join and I can notify the project.Mitch32contribs 20:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I just edited streets I knew about. Thanks for the invite, but I'm not up for it at this time. Good luck with the project.--agr 23:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Alphabet Number Value‎

I've fixed the AfD page--you needed to include the afd2 template so that the discussion page would have the proper headers. Note that when you add the afd1 template to the article itself, the template will have a "Preloaded debate" link--if you click that, it will take you to an editing page with the template already included, and with more detailed instructions on how to continue. Take care. --Finngall talk 22:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought I looked for that link and did not see it. I'll look harder next time. Thanks for your help.--agr 23:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Is 60 Hudson Street on the National Register?

I saw your new article 60 Hudson Street. I can't find its listing on the National Register of Historic Places, though (i.e. within List of Registered Historic Places in Manhattan). Is the building listed under another name, or is it part of a historic district or something? I was going to add {{Infobox nrhp}} to it. Let me know if the building is listed somewhere else. Thanks. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The sources I cited say it was designated by the "New York Landmarks Preservation Foundation" and include a photo of the plaque. It could also be listed as the Western Union Building, tho I just did a search and did not find it on the national parks site. That's all I know. Feel free to remove the Registered category if you think it is inappropriate.--agr 15:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

O_0...

[[16]]. It had a scource.--Angel David 01:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Computing ... companies categories

I've brought together, for the time being, the high level Computing...by company categories. See Category:Computing by company. A number of questions occur.

1. Why do Video game companies have computing company categories? Video games are an application and, while they will show up at the low level operating system/hardware categories, I can think of no reason for computing categories to include video game company lists. Other user application companies are not generally included. Looking at Category:Video games that user community is quite competent to take care of themselves. Suppose I delete the Category:Computing by company category from these video game categories. Whose ox would I be goring?

2. There are categories Category:Computer companies, Category:Computer hardware companies, Category:Software companies. Who goes where? Does IBM go in all three? Does a hardware company go in the 1st two or only the 2nd? Or should "Computer companies" be deleted, leaving only the hardware and software categories - thus a more obvious choice for editors?

3. Category:Software companies has only 7 or so companies listed. The vast majority of companies were in subcategories that I moved to Category:Software companies by category since that is where they belonged, given the category name. I'd suggest deleting this category (so far I've been successful in deletion requests) but it would come as a surprise to those reviewing deletion requests as the name seems so obvious.

4. Category:Computer hardware companies and Category:Computer hardware by vendor are redundant. Both are in sequence by company. For some companies the entry in the first is the company page, IBM for example, the second is a company hardware page, Category:IBM hardware. If the company doesn't have a hardware page/category, then you get the company name in one, the other,or both lists. Software by owner/Software companies has the same redundancy - if Software companies were to be populated. I'd merge "hardware companies" into "hardware by vendor" and delete "hardware companies".

5. Minor. I'll submit rename requests for Software by owner -> Software by company and Computer hardware by vendor to ... by company so that names are consistent.

Note that when writing "I'd delete" etc., it's really "I'd submit Cfd...". Appreciate any comments you might have. Thanks tooold 06:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

These are good questions. Please give me a day or so to digest.--agr 16:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
My saying "delete" when writing about video games really means reducing their status in the computing pages to that of any other application.
The 2 rename requests have been submitted.
For item 4 above, I forgot to mention that if you have a company hardware page (IBM hardware) you don't also need the company page (IBM) since the company should always be linked from the hardware page.
6. (another question) Considering Category:Software companies by category - what category does Microsoft go in? Something needs to be said on the category page about companies with multiple categories and companies for which no category is adequate (or should there be an "other" category?)
7. (a suggestion) For categories such as "Software companies by category" it would be nice if Wikipedia had an option "click here to view all subcategories merged" tooold 17:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
For amusement, look at my user page. Near the top are all the subcategories/lists of companies that I found in the computing categories - 34 of them and I didn't do software companies. tooold 04:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Charging right along. Deleted the lists at top of my user page. Look at Category:Computing by company. This has all the hardware companies and lists that I've located (Software... some day). Question 2 is moot. IBM, for example, might go in many categories/lists. My intent in having all the company cats/lists accessible from one page is that someone could, if they really wanted, do all the relevant updates for a company - they won't have to search (as I've done) to locate these pages. tooold 08:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

CryptGenRandom Paper

Any chance you can contribute a couple paragraphs on the Hebrew University paper? If not, I'll eventually get to it, but if it's fresh in your head... --- tqbf 17:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm still digesting the paper. Feel free to take a stab at it.--agr 17:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC) I added some language summarizing the findings--agr 18:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thanks. I hoisted it into a subsection (see Talk:CryptGenRandom) and reorganized the article. Merciless edits appreciated! --- tqbf 18:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

RC4 in CryptGenRandom

Is it really true that the problem is that RC4 can in general be run backwards, or is it that the small key size chosen by the Win2k function make it feasible to do so? (Good catch regarding "40 bit stream cipher").

--- tqbf 22:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

RC4 is easy to run backwards, regardless of key size. --agr 22:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the time complexity of the Hebrew Univ. paper based on the key size they chose for the algorithm? (The base attack is 2^40, the 2^32 is a speedup based on the base attack). Feel free to say "go away". --- tqbf 23:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC) nm, read more carefully. --- tqbf 23:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Winchester as an euphanism for hard disk drives

Yr edit to the HDD history page is incorrect in calling the use of Winchester "unsourced nonsense." The statement is not sourced but it is not nonsense. I refer you, for example, to "Winchester drives to be focus of attention over next two years," J Trifari, MiniMicro Systems, Februrary 1982, p 135-143, or the MiniMicro February 1981 edition which has eight articles regarding HDD's using "Winchester" generically and a cover that states, "Disk Drives: Diversification in Winchesters, Maturity in Floppies ...". A casual review on the technical and business literature of the early 1980's will find many instances of the use of Winchester drive as a generic for what we today most commonly call hard disk drive. Why it dropped from use in the late 1980's is an interesting question, but the statement is not nonsense. However, I don't think the statement adds much to the article so I didn't undo your reversion but I thought u might like to know of its factual basis. Tom94022 (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. Maybe nonsense was too strong a word, but I think we have be very careful with such statements, since people who were not around at the time may take them as gospel. The sentence I removed was "During the 1980s, the term "Winchester" became a common description for all hard disk drives, though generally falling out of use during the 1990s." That's not true. The term Winchester was used to distinguish disk drives where the heads and actuators were in a sealed assembly along with the platters. This was a novel notion at the time as removable platter hard drives, patterned after the IBM 1311, predominated. As this design came to be universal, there was no need for Winchester and it dropped out of use. I think the discussion belongs on the article talk page and I will move it there. Please reply there if you want to continue this useful discussion. --agr (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Hi. I just wondered if you'd consider letting me nominate you for adminship, as I think you're experienced enough. Thanks. Epbr123 17:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks. --agr 21:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Epbr123 would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Epbr123 to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ArnoldReinhold. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

OR

I learned my lesson -- don't try to reason with someone making changes to a page only to justify a reason to delete it. I should have just left her to do the vandalism unchallenged.Tim (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd call your attention to WP:AGF. Disagreement over editing this article have produced a fair amount of frustration for all parties, I think. --agr (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, some have found the practice exercises at the new admin school useful. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Best wishes, WjBscribe 21:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all, I really appreciate the vote of confidence.--agr (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Clyde Lee (American football)

I don't get it? Article fails WP:BLP.Sting_au Talk 10:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't the basis for the speedy, it was notability. All the other Cougars coaches have articles. It's a good-faith stub and contains nothing derogatory. It repeats info in Houston Cougars football, but I dug up a ref and added it.--agr (talk) 12:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

F.H.A.

Ah, an even better solution. Thanks, and congrats on your mop. --barneca (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

United States vs. Boucher

Nothing is wrong with the source. I was just looking at the article and was wondering if anything specific would be cited if expanded. I see direct citations are not necessary though in a case summary. By the way, interesting case. I'll remove the tag. Cheers. Manderson198(sprech)/(contribs) 05:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No prob. I dug up the actual ruling and added it as a source.--agr (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Good deal. Manderson198(sprech)/(contribs) 13:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha

It always seems so logical from afar. I do that way too often --Closedmouth (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstars for all

The Barnstar of Peace
For your work in helping to promote discussion and consensus related to the waterboarding article in a construction manner, I award you this Barnstar of peace. Thanks for all of your hard work. Remember (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

book

thanks You beat me to it. Dlohcierekim 03:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


Ryan Lage

Why did you delete my gripping article? I thought it did have some importance and it did not need to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachman0 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires that articles be about subjects that are WP:Notable. Mr. Lage does not meet that criteria just because he was the subject of a newspaper story about his train hobby. I note that articles on this person have been deleted twice before. We appreciate your interest in Wikipedia and hope you will find a more constructive way to express it.--agr (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding for protection (again)

I would appreciate it if you weighed in on my request for page protection as we are heading back into a mess. Inertia Tensor (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Greenwood, SC μSA deletion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Greenwood, SC μSA. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. J. Randall Owens | (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My bad. I had never heard of the μSA abbreviation before.--agr (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A friendly...

... greeting, I thought, might be in order. Let's discuss the article name, whether to redirect or dab, where to redirect/dab, etc, on the article Talk page. To try to do it on both the AfD and article Talk is confusing. Ok? Be well, HG | Talk 14:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's keep it on the article talk page until we have a consensus to report.--agr (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Waterboarding

Please see the above link as someone has requested arbitration for a dispute that you are or have been are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, Inertia Tensor (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

ECO Canada

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article ECO Canada, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

List of U.S. security clearance terms

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article List of U.S. security clearance terms, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 16:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of ECO Canada

An article that you have been involved in editing, ECO Canada, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ECO Canada. Thank you. GreenJoe (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Motoman, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Motoman is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Motoman, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Cavanaugh Family

Regarding Francis Cavanaugh, Francis Killian Cavanaugh, Lucas Cavanaugh, George Cavanaugh. Thank You for the advice on the page number thing. I have added proper page numbers to all of my recently added pgs and I am still trying to find more references and more books. I did a whole research paper for this family in high school and I"m trying to do another now in college. Also I have a little back round with them. The page including Francis Cavanaugh, he is the brother of my great-grandfather. So I have no clue what that makes me to that whole family but I still like to research them. Also before you ask no I'm not basing this all on handed down family stories. I have had to go research them in libraries and on the internet but I haven't found many good sites. I plan on adding more sources in the future as I find more about them. These men are good to research for many people if they want to know about Chicago crime. Thank you again. --Hdxstunts1 (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. What you have done is not good enough.--agr (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but what do you mean by: You must have a notation next to every fact you mention saying where i comes from. That may mean each sentence or at least each paragraph. Do you have an example? --Hdxstunts1 (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is one example: Woody Allen. Note that almost every statement about him has a footnote. --agr (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I tried to what I think is right. I've been going through these books all day looking for information. And I'm also finding a few websites that might help. If I find any reliability with them I could use them for sources. I hope this is okay for now but I can edit it as soon as more info arrives to me. --Hdxstunts1 (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
You still need to add page numbers to your references.--agr (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pancake cut picture

Just wanted to say thanks for that very nice picture of a cut pancake to illustrate the lazy caterer's sequence. Well done. PrimeFan (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome. It tasted good too.--agr (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FialkaManualCoverPage.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FialkaManualCoverPage.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a fair use rationale.--agr (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

George Cavanaugh

Saw your comments at George Cavanaugh and thought I would weigh in that much of it and some related pages are either pranks or "conventional wisdom" histories. One has a supposed hit man for this family being sent to jail - for the assassination of John F Kennedy. I surfed in doing some follow to the Saint Valentines Day Massacre tonight. Perhaps many of these pages should be nominated for speedy deletion (I would be it's late and I've never done that before). SteveCoppock (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding

This Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision may be reviewed through the above link. Further to the relevant findings of fact, Waterboarding and all closely-related pages are subject to article probation (full remedy); editors working on Waterboarding, or closely related pages, may be subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, whereby any edits by that editor which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, may result in a block. (full remedy).

Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block length shall increase to one year (full enforcement). Before such restrictions are enacted on an editor, he or she must be issued with a warning containing a link to the decision.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:KG-84.navy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:KG-84.navy.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Better source request for Image:KL-7.afca-museum.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:KL-7.afca-museum.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. MECU≈talk 15:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added what info I have to both image files above.--agr (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Binary prefixes (kibibytes v.s. kilobytes, etc.)

Arnold, thank you very much for your recent post on Talk:MOSNUM (∆ here). I would have not known to even look for those policy links you provided, let alone know where to find them. I think the links are all good ones that speak to the issue. I much appreciate your help. Greg L (my talk) 18:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Liberty Incident

Thanks for protecting the page. Should keep it quiet, for a time. Narson (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Almost all of the offending ips have now been blocked for 3 months (24.27.151.226 (talk · contribs), 65.30.76.58 (talk · contribs), 24.27.130.12 (talk · contribs), 65.27.38.203 (talk · contribs), 64.126.23.130 (talk · contribs), and 64.126.34.118 (talk · contribs)) but they occasionally return to blank their talk pages. This guy needs a beach ;-). Regards, SoLando (Talk) 16:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Bobvlb

I noticed your comment on BLP. In fact, all wikipedia project namespace pages are descriptive on the english wikipedia. This is a fact, and has been reaffirmed many many times, and has been stated implicitly or explicitly on many policies. See especially Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Sources_of_Wikipedia_policy. The word "policy" might be a bit of a misnomer, as you have noted. There is a claim by a very small number of editors that BLP (is an attempt at) prescriptive policy.If true, that alone would explain some of the interesting community dynamics on that page.

The reason I stepped away from the page to re-evaluate my actions has nothing to do with the above fact. It has to do with the strange community dynamics around that particular page, and the fact that my behaviour was becoming ineffective. Please don't misconstrue my motives. I'm leaving it to other people to do things their way. A different approach might work where mine has currently failed.

Bobvlb's question is his own, and is quite valid. Please give it due consideration. Thank you!

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines does not support your view. It says up front "policies are considered a standard that all users should follow." The section you cite says:
"Policy change comes from three sources:
  1. Documenting actual practices and seeking consensus that the documentation truly reflects practices.
  2. Proposing a change in practice and seeking consensus for implementation of that change.
  3. Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load. "
The section goes on to recommend the first route as the most effective, but does not preclude options 2 and 3. WP:BLP plainly falls in the latter categories. It speaks for itself, citing Mr. Wales numerous times and demanding change in the usual practice on Wikipedia. There was nothing strange about the community dynamics, simply a strong reaction against an attempt to change policy by redefining the meaning of consensus. --agr (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I was wary of getting into trouble, so I was being very careful to "stay within the lines" as much as possible. Even within the lines, I still managed to over-extend myself however (oops). That's why I'm cutting back and taking things much more slowly now. That way much less disruption can occur.
You are correct that (1) does not preclude (2) and (3). The methods are occasionally used in parallel. In the case of for instance WP:RFR, method (2) was used to modify (3). In the much more serene WP:IPEXEMPT, (1) was used to gain consensus, before making a request to a developer (3).
Many of the people involved in the discussion so far are experienced wikipedians, I think we ought to be listening to each other most carefully.
I'll start out by listening now.
While certain things may be obvious to you, there have been many different shades of perception so far and that has been part of the problem: What in your opinion brings you to say there was an attempt to (a) change policy and (b) redefine consensus in the case of the BLP 3RR exemption?
--Kim Bruning (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
(a) you began by removing a key section of the BLP policy. While I accept the "be bold" approach as a legitimate way to start a discussion, it certainly sets the agenda. (b) you took the position that evidence a policy wasn't being followed was sufficient to establish the policy did not enjoy consensus. The consensus needed to change policy must be formed in community discussion on the talk page. Per WP:Consensus "Use the talk page to discuss improvements to the article, and to form consensus concerning the editing of the page." Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines says the same procedure applies for policy changes, only greater care is required to establish a consensus exists.--agr (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. The same page also states that using the talk page is not a requirement. I think there's a contradiction there. Thanks for pointing that out. :-)
The fact that it's not a requirement is a bit of an important point though. We checked multiple variants of the consensus process, and variants including enforcement of talk page discussion were very sensitive to filibuster (which is especially annoying on policy pages, of course). In models where bold edits were permitted, they played a role somewhat akin to cloture. There has always been a lot of support for the WP:BOLD guideline,and now I have a better understanding why that is.
But on the whole, I think we agree on the broad outlines. So let's look at the other issue.
What it looks like is that people are actually (at least occasionally) being punished for following the advice to make more than 3 reverts on BLP pages. So it looks like the de-facto rule enforced on the wiki is not (always) the same as the theoretical rule written on the page. I think we agree that far, right?
I think that where we differ is how we interpret that situation, what that entails policy-wise, and what needs to be done.
Could you briefly summarize your opinion? I'll summarize mine in reply.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, here are my views:

  1. I believe the BLP policy is needed for both legal and ethical reasons. (Do you?)
  2. I believe the 3RR exclusion is a vital part of that policy, for both practical and symbolic reasons. (I gather we differ here, which is fine.)
  3. I measure the success of the 3RR exclusion by the lack of resistance I encounter when enforcing BLP policy, not by the few incidents where it is carried to the mat. I would be less vigorous in enforcing BLP policy without the exclusion, not wanting to get into endless edit wars.
  4. I am disturbed by the apparent failure of the 3RR process to consistently abide by the policy, but I consider that a communication problem, not a reason to abandon the policy.
  5. I find the case of user:Pia L editing Christopher Gillberg particularly instructive. I think his actions were proper under BLP. Perhaps you might look at Pia's recent comments on Wikipedia talk:BLP/3RR and the current state of the article.
  6. To help resolve such situations, I have suggested that the 3RR exclusion be further clarified by adding language saying that an editor who make good faith reverts to BLP's more than 3 times while informing the BLP notice board in a timely manner should not be blocked if the admins there determine the edits are not subject to the exclusion, but merely warned not to continue reverting. Violations of that warning would, of course, then be subject to sanctions. --agr (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I see... I'm looking at the situation from a very different angle. Well, there's no rush, let me first just answer your points and see how far we get with that first.

  1. My initial position is that Wikipedia is innately incapable of handling BLP, and therefore all articles on living persons should be banned. (This is probably somewhat stronger than your position). However, that is merely an initial position, and I am certainly willing to seek compromise.
  2. I think the 3RR exemption is part of the problem that is damaging BLP policy (*nod, this is where we differ*)
  3. I do not see how the 3RR exemption reduces resistance, but I've been starting to see evidence where it makes BLP situations worse. (*I think we may differ here too?*)
  4. After initial discussions, I'm beginning to get the feeling that the problems are innate to the design parameters of the BLP policy. I hope we can alleviate those design failings. However, if those failings persist, we can always go with #1
  5. I find the Pia case instructive too. Pia got punished for protecting the BLP article, and it seems that the article is still not corrected? This data-point shows a mismatch between de-facto policy applied in the field, and policy as written on the page. I would like to correct this. (*I think we differ on how to handle such mismatches*)
  6. I'd be very cautious of inputs to the policy page, I think we might be able to work on that though (see analogy below)

As a summary/analogy: In extreme situations a motor car will end up moving in a different direction to where the steering wheel is pointing. To gain and retain control in such a situation requires doing things that to many seem unintuitive (see: Drifting (motorsport)). Failure to take those measures in a timely manner inevitably leads to a crash.

Right now, I suspect that the wiki-community and the BLP policy page are "pointing in different directions."

So let's see. I think we need to discuss especially 2,3, and 5, and maybe need to do something about 6. Does that seem about right to you?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is innately incapable of getting anything right, yet we've accomplished a lot. There is no way Wikipedia can exist without covering living people so we need rules for dealing with such content. WP:BLP is the current policy and the 3RR exemption is part of it. You think it's not helpful. I and others disagree. If there is no consensus for change, it stays. The fact that some admins are not respecting the 3RR exemption is not a reason to change the policy. Admins are not the community, we are servants of the community, and when exercising our special powers we are bound to follow policy. Sure, there is room for discretion, but that does not extend to punishing editors who act in good faith according to written policy.
I took your advice and continued the discussion with Bobvld at Wikipedia talk:BLP/3RR and I'd rather not have this conversation in two places at once, so I'd like to stop this thread here. Feel free to have the last word. --agr (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Right now I'm discussing issues with people one-by-one, rather than in a centralized location, as that tends to be less disruptive in confused situations.
I have learned that hurrying makes no sense here, so I'm taking my time now. If you are having difficulties holding multiple conversations at once (due to time constraints, for instance), please just take your time answering, and/or please contact me when you are done talking with Bobvld.
Thank you for your time so far!
--Kim Bruning (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Mizar

I'd like to discuss a paragraph in the Big Dipper article. It runs:

Near Mizar is a star called Alcor and together they are informally known as the Horse and Rider. At fourth magnitude, Alcor would normally be relatively easy to see with the unaided eye, but its proximity to Mizar renders it more difficult to resolve, and it has served as a traditional test of sight. In the 17th century, Mizar itself was discovered to be a binary star system — the first telescopic binary found. The component stars are known as Mizar A and Mizar B. In 1889, Mizar A was discovered to in fact be a binary as well, the first spectroscopic binary discovered, and with the subsequent discovery that Mizar B itself is also a binary, in total Mizar currently is known to be at least a quadruple star system.

While, IMO, the first two sentences belong here, the other three do not. I deleted them, and you restored them. I'd like to go over my reasoning to try to convince you that they should be removed.

  • The article concerns the asterism, not the component stars, although I did create the table that gives some simple details about them. The appropriate place for information about one particular star is in its own article (where the information under discussion already exists). Your rationale for restoration, "It's appropriate to say something about why Mizar is of interest here. Few readers will click on the star article otherwise," seems flawed to me. It is not our business to force information down the readers' throats, no matter how interesting it may be. If they don't want to click on the links to the Mizar article that have been provided, that's their choice. ("You can lead a horse to water, ...") In fact, there's no way to guarantee that they won't skip over these sentences in the Dipper article.
  • One could reasonably ask, "Why just Mizar?" I could generate a line or two concerning some interesting aspect of the other six (gleaned from their own pages). When I first wrote the page, I felt no need to pad it out with material that merely duplicates what is in a linked article. I still feel the same way.
  • There's another difficulty. As it now stands, the paragraph contains two sentences about Mizar-and-Alcor, and three about the Mizar system. This isn't really right, as a paragraph should be limited to one idea. I wish to added another sentence, right in the middle, about a different aspect of the Mizar-and-Alcor pair, not exactly on the same point as the existing sentences. This would result in a paragraph with three ideas, which is definately too many. Grammatcally, I should cut the Mizar info loose as its own paragraph, but then it would stick out even more. (This was the impetus for the deletion.)
  • If you agree to the excision, I can refer not merely to "Mizar," but to "the very interesting Mizar system," which might provide the "push" we're both looking for to get readers to click on the "Mizar" link.

Let's leave it at this. If I don't hear back from you by, say, June 10th - over a week fom now - I'll make the changes. If you still wish to argue the point, write to me on my Talk page. We'll figure something out.

Best wishes.B00P (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've trimmed down the sentences you objected to. I do think the basic facts of Mizar's role as the first binary by two different discovery methods is notable enough to be in the asterism article. If this is not compatible with the info you want to add, I'd be happy to help you figure out suitable language.--agr (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I reworded the paragraph slightly to include Alcor's Bayer designation and its position in space relative to Mizar. I also squeezed your info about Mizar to integrate it more closely to the Mizar-and-Alcor topic of the paragraph. I hope that you find it acceptable. B00P (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think your edit is reasonable, but a bit too cryptic. I tried to make it a little clearer without adding too much bulk. Is this ok?--agr (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I added one word for grammatical clarity, ... and so it's done. B00P (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:GWBridgeUSSNautilus.agr.jpg

Very nice photo you took! The GWB article really needed a photo showing it pre-lower lever! -Seidenstud (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought it needed a single level photo too, so I looked through some old photos and found this one. I was 11 when I took it.--19:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

I wanted to say how much I appreciated your comments on the BLP noticeboard re Genie. I confess I was feeling discouraged after the first comment, especially since I wasn't really asking for an opinion about the appropriateness of inclusion (which seems abundantly clear from multiple perspectives, including policy, consensus, etc) but rather about another editor's behaviour. Your comments broke the trend and also cut to the quick of the issue I was attempting to address, so I am doubly grateful. I hope you will be able keep an eye on the situation. Given past history, I don't expect the issue to end here. Thanks again. --Slp1 (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sadly I was right. :-( --Slp1 (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, the Wikipedia process seems to be working. Your revert was appropriate, the redirect was deleted quickly and the editor has been warned to stop disruptive edits or face blocking. Glad to be of help.--agr (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The edit summary gave the false impression that the BLP discussion, to which I was not invited, nor informed of, came to a consensus based on BLP. Those commentors who are familiar with the actual policy, versus what they wish it said, said the opposite however. We do not censor news stories simply because they might be uncomfortable.Wjhonson (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I consider myself familiar with the actual policy and I do not agree with your interpretation. But more importantly, the other editors on the article's talk page did not agree with you. Yet you keep trying to insert this person's real name anywhere you can, most recently in the BLP discussion itself after you were warned to stop disruptive editing. I believe this behavior warrants sanctions. --agr (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Never mind I see you are not ad admin.Wjhonson (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've been away from editing Wikipedia for a couple of days. I'm not sure what the last comment means, but I see some other comments concerning me have been withdrawn, so perhaps it is just as well I was not able to respond at the time. --agr (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It means you are not an admin. Your user page says nothing about being an admin and has no indication that you are an admin.Wjhonson (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, well that is at least one area we can clear up easily: yes, I am an admin. Sorry for any confusion.--agr (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You complaint about spam deletion? Have nothing better to do?

After the amount of harassment I had to stomach you come complaint about this deletion now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Pantone&diff=prev&oldid=219440625

What is this suppose to mean?

Just to be clear, there are two issues regarding the Paul Pantone article: your removal of a comment from the talk page here and your restoring of information to the main article that was deleted because it dealt with living people and was not properly sourced. You may not add information about living people to Wikipedia unless is comes from and cites a reliable source. You will be blocked if you do either again.--agr (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Explain this nonsense to me.

What do you mean living people?

Arthur is working really hard to kill the guy right there on the page.

He has deleted all references to the Paul pantone defence program.

No trial no medical neglect.

The paul pantone fans should not be able to help Paul Pantone in any way.

This is the rule of Arthur the great wikipeidia suppressor bringer of absolute truths and divine ignorance.

And this is after he vandalised the free energy suppression article for just about forever.

But you really want to waste my time with geet.com

Why is that?

Are you another one of those time wasting people or are you here to remove that knife from my back?

Go-here.nl (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to waste your time or mine. geet.com has nothing to do with this article and should not be linked. You should not have removed the comment about it from the talk page. Information on living people, Paul Pantone or his alleged tormentors, must come from reliable sources. See WP:RS. --agr (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty incident

Hi, A while back, you added a ref to USS Liberty incident with the name "IDFreport". However, a ref with that name never existed before or after in that article. I'm thinking that perhaps you meant "IDFhistory". Could you fix that please if you still remember ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I've fixed them. There were a bunch. --agr (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Kaavya Viswanathan vandalism

Look, I am not going to bother editing the article again since you obviously own the encyclopedia. But your rationale to me seems idiotic. You said "An info box is not appropriate here. It contains almost no information and is an invitation to add details that do not belong in the article" which is silly. The article as it stands has virtually no biographical information as it is, and any invitation to add information would seem to me to be quite useful. It is largely because of people like you that I gave up real editing a long time ago and only touch things like infoboxes. Why don't you just ban everyone else period since you have a special claim in accuracy that no one else seems to have? Don't bother replying. I accept your seniority and inherent expertise and will not edit futher. Good work. Another wonderful case of Wikibullying successful! 70.186.172.75 (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I raised my concerns about the info box on the BLP noticeboard before I removed it. If additional information is needed for this article it it should be worked into the article text. BLP content is a major concern on Wikipedia. If you wish to edit BLPs, you have to be sensitive to those concerns. If not, there are plenty of articles to work on that have nothing to do with living people.--agr (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ref for balsa wood on "Colonization of the Moon" article

You recently provided a citation I requested on the Colonization of the Moon article regarding the use of balsa wood in landing apparatus by the Ranger project. Thank you very much for doing so! However, the PDF you linked to is a scan, without any OCR, so it is not text-searchable, and the only way for me (and other readers/editors) to find the reference you've cited is to read the entire document. Could you please add a page number for the relevant page of your citation?

Oh, and by the way, the Ranger program article on en.wikipedia currently does not mention balsa. Perhaps both the assertion and its backing citation ought to moved together from Colonization of the Moon to Ranger program. Thanks again. --arkuat (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I did give a page number in the ref, p. 80. My copy of the PDF was searchable, by the way. The use of balsa wood is mentioned in the Ranger 3 article; I suppose it could be mentioned in the Ranger program article as well. Regardless, it belongs in the Colonization of the Moon article since it is an important early example shock absorbing material for landing objects on the moon.--agr (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your gracious response to my rushed and rather clueless posting. --arkuat (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. We're both just trying to make the articles better. --agr (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleting a spouse name

Not really relevant to the discussion in WT:BLP, but I am curious to know if you ever have deleted the name of a spouse from any WP:BLP artcle? patsw (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't. --agr (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Solar System

I noticed your edit, and would like your contribution to the talk page on Talk:Solar_System#New_List. -HarryAlffa (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Examples of "do no harm" doing harm

Hi, I'm not sure if you missed my reply (twice now) in the jumble that is talk:BLP. Here's a link straight to it: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#donoharmexamples.--Father Goose (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I did finally see it. Sorry I missed it before. It will take me a bit to digest tho. --agr (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:Firingsquad.WWI.staged.jpg

Image:Firingsquad.WWI.staged.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Exécution par un peloton d'exécution d'un espion allemand durant la Première guerre mondiale.jpg. Commons is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image(s) will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Exécution par un peloton d'exécution d'un espion allemand durant la Première guerre mondiale.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

AE

Thanks for your remark at AE. The discussion is closed for me, but since you reacted, I would like to tell you that I think that there are however two problems:

  • we cannot make an article neutral by giving a brief reference to a compensating article
  • the other articles are also being screened for information which is "disliked" by the "official version wardens" for deletion.

Once again thanks,  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

MBTA v. MIT students article

Hi Arnold. Thanks for your help on this article Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority v. Anderson. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wind power

If you look at the talk page you will see that the last comment is that the article is quite large. I looked at the article and a huge section was taken up by a relatively minor topic - environmental effects, so I moved it to a subarticle. If you feel I missed anything that should be included in the main article, feel free to add it. However, there is no reason for more than two or three paragraphs, in the main article, and certainly no reason to duplicate 30 k of text. Delphi234 (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I was too hasty. I should have looked more carefully at what you had done. --agr (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin Image

You sir, are my hero. I had no idea how many hoops I would have to jump to get copyrights of that image.

This process is all very new to me.

cheers,

Duuude007 (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. Do be aware that others may challenge the fair-use justification for this image. Any additional information you can provide on its origin would be helpful. Blogs are not generally accepted as sources on Wikipedia.--agr (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Password strength article

agr, I've been involved in a long term editing problem with this article (the agony can be seen in the talk page, but be warned it's lengthy). We got to the point of hassling with the 3R rule, and I decided to ask for help. I posted a notice at computer security project, but have gotten little response.

It's an important article and is referred to on the WP sign-in page, so newbies will be using it. At present, it's obscure at best and really bad at worst. My attempts to provide some context for our New Members ran up against an editor who was insistent on citations for the obvious, and in the introduction too.

I'd appreciate it if you could drop by and take a look. An independent opinion may be sufficient to make some progress on improving the article, especially the introduction, for the average Reader who may be expected to see it.

It's a Wikishame it's so bad and confusing. ww (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look.-agr (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. ww (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Quicktime 7 Leopard.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Quicktime 7 Leopard.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an error. The image is in use in Quicktime.--agr (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


Image permission problem with Image:Palin nowhere.jpg

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Palin nowhere.jpg, which you've sourced to http://www.andrewhalcro.com/the_bridge_to_somewhere. I noticed that that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not upload this image, i merely supplied a fair use justification. This had subsequently been deleted, but I have restored it.--agr (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Stambaugh on Palin Talk

Thank you and noted. Very frustrated by everything we know about that guy and the propensity for editors to try painting HIM as the victim! Fcreid (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

IEC prefixes

You may wish to comment on this discussion at MOSNUM. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

RFU & CSD#I7

Just wanted to let you know, since you raised the issue, that I did go ahead and open a conversation at WT:CSD. I presume you might be interested in contributing. Hopefully, the template & the policy page can be brought into accord in short order. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll watch the discussion there and respond as needed.--agr (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've replied to a slightly old comment midway through the thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Add Wiktionary link to left sidebar. Hope that helps. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does, thanks. I've responded there.--agr (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Your participation is requested at Data remanence

Hi there! I saw your recent edits at Data remanence, and I'm hoping you'll join my in a discussion at Talk:Data remanence#Reconciling US DoD with others. There are many different standards, and I'm chiefly familiar with the DoD take on things. I think it's great that you're bringing some additional insight to the article, but I'm not sure how to proceed in the face of the sometimes conflicting standards. Hope to see you there! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added my comments there.--agr (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Denialist Hate Speech

First and foremost I would like to sincerely ask you for your help. Your input and patience is appreciated. I want to bring to your attention this. HD86 has made numerous comments such as "The Assyrians are EXTINCT people of ancient Mesopotamia whose name was stolen by some modern politicians and used in reference to the modern Syriacs. To label the modern Syriacs by "Assyrians" and to claim that "The Assyrian people trace their origins to the population of the pre-Islamic Levant" is indeed stupidity in its purest form." These comments are inflammatory, racist, unhistprical and outrageous. This user continues to deny that a whole race even exists. He needs to be wiki disciplined. This is unacceptable inflammtory denialist behavior. The equivalent of his statments would be that jews or arabs do not exist. Do you not see the point. His languge is very hateful and dimeaning to those of us involved in the project. If you take a look at his history he has similar incompetent statemetns regarding other controverisal topics. I ask for assistance in order to remove this hateful user from this discussion. He has denied the existence of an entire race that through ample ancient and modern evidence has existed for thousands of years. I will be waiting for your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nineveh 209 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the discussion on the talk page and the user seems to be engaged in constructive discussion at the moment. Let me know if you feel that has changed and I'll take another look.--agr (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Standard Form 312

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Standard Form 312, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable government form.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RayAYang (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the prod tag and responded on the article's talk page.--agr (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Old issue

Hello, found this as I'm having some concern regarding the contributions of Geronimo20. See my discussion page at User_talk:Wikigi#Fishing_templates and December 2008. It seems that the issue has been raised before by contributors like yourself and that all discussions have been later deleted by Geronimo20, he does edit his own talk page on a regular basis to remove all trace of conflicts or adverse opinions. Any support would be appreciated, thanks - Wikigi | talk to me | 22:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, would you a take moment to give your opinion here on the matter (removing of left-aligned images in some article lead, images often already within a navigation box), your previous position is being taken in consideration, thanks. - Wikigi | talk to me | 12:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I really don't have a strong opinion on this question. I'd go along with whatever consensus emerges on the talk page.--agr (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Article collaboration proposal at WikiProject Space Colonization

Hi, I've put together a proposal for an article collaboration of the week at WikiProject Space Colonization. I would appreciate if you could take a look and let me know if you're interested in participating. Wronkiew (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Reversal of an edit

Thank you for reversing the edit by User:Wolfkeeper on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. He has been attempting to justify his position in a dispute in an article by amending other Wikipedia guidelines as well. JMcC (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't why I made the change. Jmcc150 is making a wikicareer over assuming my bad faith. I'm simply going around trying to draw the cleanest lines in the guidelines I can, and I've been doing this for a considerable period.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Arnold, I do have a question about your revert though, you claimed that Integral covered distinct definitions, but when I checked it, it seemed to be on essentially one topic. If there really are articles that are on multiple distinct definitions, then they probably should be split- I'm sure there are some though... do you have a really clean example of this, or is there some feature of Integral that I have missed?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that an article may cover synonymous usages of a term or definition, but not homographs. Do you disagree?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

My main concern is that language like "encyclopedia articles must not" should be reserved for strong legal or ethical considerations, e.g. copyright or BLP. The previous language "encyclopedia articles do not usually contain" seems sufficiently prescriptive to me. I agree that homographs generally should be in separate articles (and that may be a better way of expressing the guidance), but I can envision exceptions. Perhaps a second meaning is not suitable for an article, but needs to be mentioned for clarity. And some meanings may differ but be related. We can trust editors to make these judgements.--agr (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Flat file database

Please take a look at this article, especially the history section. Thanks 69.106.242.20 (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I tried to clean the sectionup.--agr (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD of JEDEC memory standards

Hello,

You haven't edited the article in question, but since you are or have been actively involved in the IEC prefix discussion (sorry to remind you of it if you, like me, got tired of the uncivil discussion and wanted to have nothing to do with the issue anymore), I invite you to consider the nomination for deletion of the article JEDEC memory standards, which I believe can fairly be said to have been created only as a hammer for the discussion.

I beg you to try to keep your sentiments about the actual IEC prefix on Wikipedia question out of the deletion discussion and consider the merits of the deletion proposal, namely, notability in the Wikipedia sense (WP:N), regardless of which units you believe Wikipedia should use.

The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JEDEC memory standards. --SLi (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Unit record equipment, Tabulating machine

Seems confused. Unit record equipment#Tabulating section states Tabulating machine is the main article, then states see IBM 407 for more details. Tabulating machine states that Unit record equipment is the main article - a circular definition. I'll see any changes you might choose to make, don't bother to reply here. Thanks, 69.106.242.20 (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the inconsistencies between the use of the main tag in Tabulating machine and unit record equipment. I also restored your http://www.pattonhq.com/ibm.html external link. Finally, I reverted your changes to plugboard because the stuff you moved to control panel didn't stick. I understand what you were trying to do, and I think you have a point, but it may need discussion at Talk:Control panel (computer). This is a pretty common occurrence on Wikipedia: somebody makes a major edit, someone else reverts it and discussion ensues. (Oh and bcz means "because" I think.--agr (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved your reply here (I watch your talk page), it's easier to follow if we keep it all together. The patton link isn't "mine", but when I moved it a bot rejected it as not being the kind of the external link that Wikipedia wanted. Looking at the bot or its description (can't recall) it seemed to be the web site that was objected to. I found about the control panel revert & corresponded with the editor who did the revert. He stated that it was a prior edit that was the problem & he had reverted the article to an even earlier version. My edits were lost as "collateral damage". Have to go back to that article, see exactly what was objected to & will possibly restore my edits. Will let you know if I do that & will wait a while to see if anyone else has a problem with it. I had organized the plugboard text by topic before discovering the control panel article; thanks for restoring to that version. 69.106.242.20 (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I know the link wasn't yours, but it's a good resource regardless of what the bot thinks. The question to consider is whether to put the wiring panel stuff into Control panel (computer), leave it where it is, or make a distinct article, maybe Control panel (removable). It's generally not good to have totally different topics in the same article. PS You might consider getting yourself an account. In theory all contributers are considered equal, but in practice account holders are taken more seriously. --agr (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Control panel (computer) is where it belongs since Control panel "metaphor" is already there. I have an account; used for creating pages, moving pages and edits that I think might be controversial (I'm also very careful to not sock puppet). For the hundreds of small edits I prefer an IP address so that when a strange response pops up I can just move on. For an example, see User talk:69.106.242.20#Astatine-210. Other editors have since removed some of Astatine-210's categorizations, but if you look at Category:Application software you'll see the 2 articles that belong there -- and Freecorder! (you should feel free to delete that category from Freecorder!!) My experience with using an IP has been ok; other peoples responses have all been been based on content. The exception is the area of CfD, etc, but that always been a Theatre of the Absurd, whether an IP or account was used. I now simply reagard CfDs, ... as a crapshoot.69.106.242.20 (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)r

I believe the metaphor discussed in Control panel (computer) really refers to Control panel (engineering), not the wiring devices we are taking about. As for your use of an account and an IP address, I think you are on shaky ground. While doing so does not directly violate WP:SOCK, that policy states: "If someone uses alternative accounts, it is recommended that they provide links between the accounts in most cases to make it easy to determine that one individual shares them and to avoid any appearance or suspicion of sockpuppetry (see alternative account notification)." As for Freecorder, I basically agree with you, though I can see a case for Category:Audio software. In fact I can see an argument for Audio software being a subcat of Digital audio recording instead of the other way around. You should raise the issues on the Freecorder talk page tho.--agr (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Early_IBM_disk_storage

Please see the discussion on the Scope of the Early IBM disk storage article. I agree that the scope could be improved and would like to rename the article to one on IBM Mainframe Disk Storage which would range from the IBM 350 RAMAC to the IBM 3390. Rather than compare to a 2004 drive I would compare the 350 to the 3390. I would try to end with a section on IBM abandoning SLEDs for small form factor disk drives in RAID configurations at least in part due to commercial pressure from EMC (assuming I can find suitable references). Non-mainframe disk drives such as 3370 and FDDs would be dropped or put into a see also section (there are many other non-mainframe IBM disk drives, some very early, e.g. 2315). Since u originated the article I thought I would see what u think about these somewhat radical changes. I'll watch this page so u can reply here or, preferably, at the article discussion. Tom94022 (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, ArnoldReinhold. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Possible disruption on Cognex Corporation. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Can you take a look at User_talk:Dems_on_the_move#Request_for_unblock? Thanks. J.delanoygabsadds 21:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And do you have any clue what this: [17] is about? --Reinoutr (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea. --agr (talk) 09:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You are familiar with WP:BRD, right?

Because you aren't helping yourself by reverting images over and over again based on your personal assessments. When you are reverted, your next tak is to use the discussion page to build or clarify a consensus. You have yet to do that. Fewer things piss me off than people who think that consensus doesn't apply to them. Now, I am sure that you aren't being this way on purpose - maybe take a little break,, and come back and build a consensus. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Btw, you are at two reverts thus far. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
As I pointed out on the article's talk page, there appears to be a consensus for this edit. You are the only one opposing it. And you have reverted 3 times [18], [19], [20]. Please review WP:3RR.--agr (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, didn't you make 3 reverts as well? You could have avoided ALL of the bullshit nonsense that you have created by simply following BRD. You chose to ignore that. Inherit the wind, my friend. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I've edited Henry Louis Gates arrest incident exactly once. Not three times, not twice, just once. Check the logs.--agr (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Space and survival

A merger has been proposed that as an editor of this article you may be interested in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Space_and_survival#I_suggest_the_merger_of_this_article_into_Human_Planetary_Habitability

GabrielVelasquez (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Motoman

A tag has been placed on Motoman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Wizard191 (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Deniers and BLP

Hi Arnold, thanks for your input at BLP/N. The trouble is, the problem is not going to go away. There are far too many editors with daggers in their eyes bent on using Wikipedia to express their personal judgement that living climate change skeptics are "denialists". Any thoughts on how this can be handled moving forwards? Alex Harvey (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

We have lots of hot button articles on Wikipedia with POV editors trying to get their views to dominate. Our process seems to work most of the time but it can be painful to watch. I suggest patience, persistence, civility and a sense of humor. The policies are there to help.--agr (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I regret to say that I can't agree that it works most of the time, as I have yet to find it working in even a single instance and I've tried to apply this policy quite a number of times. In principle, it could work in an odd situation where a single editor with an axe to grind was completely isolated in his POV. But in most cases, the POV will be shared by a number -- if not a large number -- of editors, and as you can see, it only takes a small group of three or four editors to shout out down all opposition. And in the event that the subject of a BLP is an "enemy of the left" it's generally the case that there will be administrators stepping in to support these violations of the policy. In the present case, you'll note that Ratel is still reverting attempts to remove the material, e.g. here. What next? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I've responded on the BLP notice board. --agr (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this -- welcome to climate change! :) Alex Harvey (talk) 07:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Global warming denial

You have misread the article. Did you not read the qualifier "usually" in the lede? Do you understand that it means "in most cases but not all cases"? Your deletion of the section was incorrect. Please reinstate it. ► RATEL ◄ 23:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no. When one says "People who are X are usually doing evil Y, and Joe is X," you are accusing Joe of likely doing evil Y. If Joe is a living person, that's not ok on Wikipedia without high quality sources that demonstrate Joe is doing evil Y. Please review WP:BLP.--agr (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP at Ian Plimer#Climate change scepticism

You may want to take a quick look at Talk:Ian Plimer#BLP vs "Climate Change Denier".

Editor Verbal appears to be confused regarding the now-clear BLP policy regarding "See also" links.

Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Note

I've brought up one of your recent admin actions for discussion here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.--agr (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

ArnoldReinhold, I have unblocked William M. Connolley, and will also unblock Ratel shortly. Please be advised that admins are strongly discouraged from using the tools to support their position in a dispute. Thank you. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

After looking at it more deeply, I'm not sure that you were an involved admin. I apologize for coming to too quick a conclusion. Cla68 (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This block was absurd. You are involved. Apologise William M. Connolley (talk) 06:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Withdraw your demand. :-) ATren (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

ArnoldReinhold blocked users over a BLP issue that is brand new, that is, whether or not to have links in the See also sections of pages (any pages, in this case the page was on a book, not a person). The BLP policy was altered only yesterday, without much discussion, specifically because of this content dispute (at Heaven and Earth (book)). ArnoldReinhold was an involved admin, who had entered the fray with his opinions and done some reverting. He should not have blocked other editors over the issue, especially when the point under discussion is rather murky (ie climate change denial is a term not exclusively reserved for organized, funded disinformation campaigns but may also reasonably be said to relate to anyone who is lobbying publicly to block AGW legislation or claim that AGW is a "scam" or wrong or dishonest, as the person in question has indeed done). I think ArnoldReinhold should resile from further involvement in this complex topic since he did not even know clearly what AGW meant diff when he arrived from the BLP noticeboard. ► RATEL ◄ 07:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting argument: you claim he was involved, then subsequently claim that he doesn't know anything about the topic. Seems a bit contradictory, don't you think? :-) ATren (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record, Ratel used the abbreviation AGW on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons without explaining what it means and I attempted to clarify the term for that audience, which had no reason to know the term. See his diff. As for the rest, the discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Involved_admin_issuing_block and that is where it belongs for now.--agr (talk) 07:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
For reference your point on AN "If the community expects the strong mandate of WP:BLP to be enforced, admins who attempt in good faith to do so need to be given the benefit of the doubt" has some merit and given me cause to pause. Enough to mean that as I don't have the time or energy on forensics I suspend judgement on whether you acted improperly. However as a point of principle, you should probably still consider some sort of apology, if without admitting wrongdoing. I think you can at least appreciate a point of view which says a non-consensus rule change is not a basis for immediately revising a whole load of articles, and that it is too much to ask admins to breathe every policy wording change. Therefore, the existence of good faith on the other side (as well as the involvement of several experienced admins) should be accepted. --BozMo talk 13:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think you own anyone an apology, especially not WMC, who has a history of amplifying embarrassing or unflattering claims about ideological opponents. But, in the future, you might consider protecting the page(s) until the issues are resolved, rather than issuing blocks. Temporary page protection would be less drama-inducing. I agree wholeheartedly on your BLP stance. ATren (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not base my actions on the change to BLP. When the question of See also was first raised at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, I said that no policy change was required as all contentious material was covered by BLP, though a clarification wouldn't hurt. Ratel was part of that discussion. I also brought the question of the specific edit in question to WMC's talk page. He did not respond. When I asked him a second time to respond as a fellow admin, he simply erased my edit. diff. In the process he also erased your comment there, BozMo, which I never saw until just now. Had I seen it, I should and I think would have discussed the matter further with you. I do apologize for that. And I also should have prepared a detailed explanation for my actions before I issued the blocks and posted it on both talk pages. I apologized for that as well. I rarely use the tools and this is a valuable lesson learned for me. Perhaps, as ATren suggests, temporary page protection would have been a better course. But I had to make a judgement call and I still stand by the one I made. The net result is that the issues involved got a lot more visibility and I think that is to the good. I've never accused anyone in this matter of bad faith and would be happy to pass the peace pipe with the editors involved. --agr (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, you would not have found me around at 5am European time anyway. Personally I don't think I would have the courage/inclination to block another admin (let alone a bureaucrat and well respected admin who probably single handedly does 10% of all WPs edit war blocks, with eye watering fairness) on a subjective call. But I guess I take my hat off for the "life's too short" attitude, and actually WMC ought to acknowledge that positively whatever the other circumstances were. So far in several years of being an admin I have done less than ten blocks so I am not a great proponent of them. --BozMo talk 18:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This is awful. Your original block was absurd, which was why it was reversed. You've yet to answer my comment above, which is ironic given your demands for talk. Your assertion that he simply erased my edit is nonsense, as [21] verifies. Over the period in question you have 2R against my 2R. Somehow you think that makes you (a) uninvolved and (b) in some mysterious fashion not edit warring whilst I am. Th "oh dear I've made this into a giant mess so everyone has noticed" defence is nonsense: the same old folk are there, as ever. You've acheived nothing except muddy the waters and your reputation William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

temp break

For personal reasons I can't respond until Sunday. Sorry. --agr (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

But what about *your* demands that I respond to you immeadiately? Isn't this rather blatantly hypocritical? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
admin makes dumb block. Admin suddenly develops "personal reasons" to create an absence. Quelle surprise. Minkythecat (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievable. :-( For the record, WMC, he did respond, with a polite note that he couldn't fully respond until Sunday, and an apology for the delay. Your response is frankly reprehensible. Take the time you need, agr. ATren (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Polite "note" or convenient excuse? Minkythecat (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Really? ATren (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Simple question. I mean, it's not like "hit n run" admin actions / dealing with fallout from actions have every happened in the history of wikipedia, no? Did the temp break get announced before or after everything kicked off? Minkythecat (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm striking my comment above, because it is implicitly an invitation to discussion, which I'm not interested in. This tawdry error is worth no more of my time. Come to my talk page and apologise; or don't. I'm not watching here William M. Connolley (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was away for the weekend and only had cell phone connectivity, which made it difficult to edit. (The "temp break" was meant as a temporary section break--the new section tab was the only way I could add to the end of the page--but the interpretation adopted is fine too. I wish I could claim the wisdom to take a few days to chill without being forced to.)

At the suggestion of others at the administrator's notice board discussion, which is now archived here, I reviewed WP:BLPSE. The guideline it references says.

"Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy. Administrators may use the page protection and deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance."

It also makes it clear that I was not an involved editor:

"Taking action under this provision shall not constitute involvement for the purpose of future such actions."

Others have pointed out that page protection would have been a better solution and as one who rarely uses blocks I have to agree that I should have tried that first. I am truly sorry for that. We still disagree on the underlying issue, however. I recognize he has Wikipedia's best interests at heart, but I hope he can recognize that I do too. I'd be happy to discuss the issues with him if he is willing, or cooperate in any appropriate dispute resolution mechanism he chooses. Otherwise, we can both just move on. I will copy this to his talk page as well. --agr (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(He responded graciously on his talk page [22].)--agr (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

apologies Arnold

Having read the above and the details of the AN/I discussion I must apologise profusely for getting you involved in this matter. How so many editors managed to see you as an "involved" editor in the content dispute utterly baffles me. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to apologize for. The issues you raised were important ones. Admining at Wikipedia is not for the faint of heart. --agr (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Climate change denial.

Can you please explain this rather strange removal? Both Fred Singer and Philip Cooney are documented in the article, by very reliable sources. So either you haven't read the article - or you are spuriously removing items (to make a point of some kind?). There is even a recent item on Talk, where documentation for Singer was requested and provided to Tillman's satisfaction. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And in case you are wondering - yes it is folowing WP:BLP by both letter and spirit. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I could not find any mention of Singer in the article at all. Clooney is discussed and linked in the article text. From WP:SEEALSO Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section. While the discussion of Clooney puts his action in context, the inclusion of the two links in the See also suggests both men are deniers as defined in the article lede. That's not acceptable without cited quality sources that specifically assert bad faith. You can include quotes from reliable sources about Singer in the article text with full citations. Consider this a final warning that restoring the links violates BLP policy.--agr (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Content decisions such as a See Also which is well documented in the text (as well as on the end-article), are not BLP concerns. The reasons for the "See Also" on Cooney, is because there is related and indepth discussion of the subject at the article, something which isn't covered by the wikilink on the name. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Kim, we've had this discussion on Plimer's page, and I'm unconvinced that individual names should be linked unqualified to an article which discusses disinformation and bad faith. If there are convincing, reliably sourced claims against these individuals made by others (there are) then they belong in the text of the BLP with a link back to CCD from that context. A "see also" in either direction is inappropriate per BLP, because it does not qualify the association or put it into context. The only way I believe it is acceptable is if there is almost incontrovertible evidence of association. For example, Bernie Madoff pled guilty to fraud, and his "see also" contains con man. This would be controversial in most cases, but not for someone who has pled guilty or has been convicted. Short of this level of documentation, an unqualified, out of context link to or from CCD is inappropriate. ATren (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


(e/c)There are both qualifying references on Philip Cooney's biography page, and in the article. Its not just a case of extra linking - its a referral to the indepth description that is available on the Cooney article. If you read the Cooney article then you would find that Cooney has pleaded "guilty" before the Congress. There is no "unqualified, out of context links" here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
What I mean by "unqualified, out of context" is the presence of the link as a "see also". I feel this about any "see also". My view (shared by others) is that "see also" very much implies categorization, an unambiguous link, between the article and the link. Bernie Madoff admitted to being a con man, there is no doubt about that, so "see also con man" is acceptable. It sounds like Cooney's association may be strong enough to have a "see also" (would have to investigate further to say for sure). But it must be used with care in most cases. ATren (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Two things: Generally its a good idea to check things before arguing, and its rather silly to state "(shared by others)" if you know that its a divided issue. (ie. everyone arguing here no matter their position could state this). Finally try to at least see the other point of view, even if there are some rather outrageous arguments in between (which goes for both sides on this if i may say so). I do not agree with you or agr on this, but then i do not completely disagree - its not black/white, there are a whole smattering of shades of gray here. (sorry to state things so strong, but first of all i'm frustrated by these debates, and secondly i'm tired (its late here)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I could accept the Cooney link if it had some context, e.g. "additional details on his activities" or some such. As it stands it implies he is a bad faith denier and I've seen no evidence he even has an independent opinion. Put Singer in the body text with quotes and cites and maybe we can settle this. I'd rather not up the page protection and just let the editors make the changes. Is that ok with you all?--agr (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not agree with you that a "see also" implies such, that is neither the function nor the intention of that section. It is to point out related information, that is not directly within the context of the article. You do not imply that Socialism is Capitalism if you place a see also to socialism on the cap. article - you are simply giving navigational hints. (which would probably not be necessary - since there is a navigation box for politics (without checking)). As you are putting things, you are ignoring WP:AGF towards a subselection of editors, who disagree with you. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
But adding Barak Obama to Socialism's See also would imply Barak is a socialist. I'm not questioning anyone's good faith here. I'm listing to your arguments and you've helped me see that the Cooney link is more of a grey area. I was about to comment on the article talk page. Can we move the discussion back there? --agr (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:System 3 punch card.jpg

File:System 3 punch card.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:System 3 punch card.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:System 3 punch card.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter Schiff Unprotection request

Resolved
 – Smallman12q (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've made a request that Peter Schiff, an article you edit and move protected, be unprotected at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Peter Schiff.Smallman12q (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for unprotecting...if vandalism kicks in, I'll let you know, but till then IP users should be given an opportunity.Smallman12q (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Need your opinion on some photographs

Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Jefferson Disks

The statement "Jefferson's device had 26 disks" is incorrect. Many sites report this inaccurate fact: check The Codebreakers to verify. David Kahn researched Jefferson's papers directly and cites them in The Codebreakers. Jefferson used 36 disks.Econrad (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. I'll go with Kahn too, especially where he shows that Jefferson calculated 36 factorial to estimate the system's security. I added a specific page reference to the 36 disks statement. --agr (talk) 05:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you!!Econrad (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement?

Re. [23] - I don't see it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just trying to say that the controversy over waterboarding in the U.S. is not really about whether it is torture, but whether or not to use it. The latter question does not affect our lede at all. Your fodder comment was a convenient hook to make the point. I think we are in strong agreement on the subject overall and I appreciate the effort you are putting into this. --agr (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I think (as far as I can see from an outside perspective) that there were both discussions, and that they are coupled, as a significant part of the US public is (thankfully) uneasy with torture, and trying to rationalize it away. I don't think McCain would have been a good president, but I do very much give him kudos for his clear statements on this topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Certainly the question was in the air, but no candidate that I am aware of went on record saying waterboarding isn't torture. Many said they'd use it under certain circumstances. McCain, of course, has the unique perspective of having been a prisoner of war and having undergone torture. --agr (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Tom Tancredo, a republican also-also-also-ran, did, albeit in an off-hand comment in which he also supported torture in general (only for EVIL people, of course). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned his “I’m looking for Jack Bauer” comment on Talk:Waterboarding. --agr (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Laws vs. theories

Evolution is not concise, it's comprehensive. "Laws" are single statements (E=mc2, F=gm1m2/r2, "It is impossible to convert heat completely into work in a cyclic process"). Evolution is a large field, like relativity or thermodynamics. Just to load the straw to breaking point... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The distinction between theories and laws in not precise. Einstein introduced two principals in his 1905 paper (principal of relativity and the principal of the consistency of the speed of light), but they could just as well be called laws. And of course there are the three laws of thermodynamics. I think the core of evolution could be stated concisely as a law. The problem with the word "theory" is that it makes no assertion of validity. Lamarckism evolution was a theory. So was the Ptolemaic system, it even had predictive power. I chose "law" in my example to contrast a possible strong claim with the restrain our evolution article employs. I think that article is stronger as a result. --agr (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Why did you revert me at Wikiproject Judaism?

See [24] - not a good revert, and no reason given. Rollback? Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm really sorry. It was an accident. I was scrolling thru my watchlist on my iPhone and accidently hit the rollback link on your article and another. I tried to undo the edits as soon as I noticed, but in your case someone beat me to it.--agr (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Whew, glad to hear that. I've done it myself. I'm impressed you edit via mobile phone. Why don't you show yourself as an Admin anywhere? When I realised you were one I couldn't believe it was deliberate. Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Unified wording on de-PRODding & Yodeling children

Wanted to give you a major thanks for the giant laugh I got from your example of a theoretical East Podunk, Wisconsin Homeless Children Yodeling Society as a contested PROD. A Google of that actually gave a very interesting collection or returns and a lot of results match 5/7. and 5/6 without "East". "Homeless" is the only word holding things up (but this is a good thing).

*Cough* Oh right, I had one lingering worry about re-PRODs I wanted an opinion on if you haven't looked back in over at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion; The template's page proper implies that vandalism removals should (or at least quite likely can) be replaced. WP:PROD is the usual we all use including removals in bad faith counting as enough to move to possible XfD. Wording is "...this excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as... obvious vandalism." Shouldn't the two probably match exactly to avoid any confusion? I'd also argue that it's incredibly hard to determine what's honest-to-god vandalism within our precise definition if we're talking about something of less than stub length, above "significant" to pass CSD and below "notable". It's a gray enough area already, and the easy way out wouldPast my very detailed one possible exception, I'll agree that all is well enough, though... short some pretty-colored templates being welcomed. Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed EPWHCYS. You kind of lost me at the end of your comment -- I'm not sure what you are suggesting. For "obvious vandalism" I would envision something like someone removing PROD tags on a whole series of articles with no reason given. As long as there is one editor, however misguided, who is sincerely saying the article should stay, it's not vandalism. My concerns here are instruction creep and WP:BITE. Maybe one solution is a template to put on the dePRODing editor's talk page with a polite request for an explanation and some basic info on Wikipedia process (how to reply, what we are looking for in a new article, what is likely to happen if no explanation is given, don't take it personally, etc.). It could be used in cases of no explanation or weak ones. If no response is given, then that should be mentioned in the XfD nomination, perhaps leading to SNOW.--agr (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Mostly, I (think I) mean... because editors/patrols have a veeeeeeeeeery wide range of things they call "vandalism", they may or may not handle the process the same way since we have different definitions of what to do with dubiously-removed PRODs. My brain got locked with about 100 different examples and figured there had to be one way to avoid any debate in the future about the "can we delete it now?" part of the new article process. Let's pretend that--

  • Editor A removed the PROD with no changes, no summary and posts to no talks.
  • Editor B removed and had an edit summary of "go away".
  • Editor C removed the PROD and added content not related to the PROD rationale.
  • Editor D removed the PROD and improved the article, but at the same time enhances the rationale for the PROD (ie, adds more absurd claims, adcruft, etc)

→ In any of those 4, different patrols might see it as "vandalism". If they read Template:Prod it encourages the PROD be replaced if "vandalism" removed it. WP:PROD says "vandalism" can be replaced but clarifies that "bad faith" removals mean XfD regardless. Combine various user definitions of "vandalism" and you end up with a gray area around the meaning of "bad faith" and confusion of it a removal should be reverted or not. My proposal was to include the "bad faith" wording to Template:Prod so that they match and there could be no confusion. Nothing should ever, ever be re-PRODded ...except the Editor A example since it is disruptive with no other purpose ("vandalism"!) and has no wiggle room. B C and D could be bad faith or even good faith... the nasty gray area. Using the exact same language in both locations would remove any misinterpretation, meaning no future endless rambling like this. 1 distinct time where the PROD can be reverted, and only that. ...Yeah, sorry, I really don't know why I think out in this much detail. Do suggest matching the wording! An official AGF PROD removal template might also be nice. *shrugs* Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 09:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't classify any of those as vandalism. "Go away" comes closest; "Go away you @#$%" would definitely be. Again, I think the next step in any of these cases is to put an inquiry, perhaps by template, on the removers talk page. There's a tension between making patrollers life easy and not discouraging new editors. I lean more to the latter, but then I don't spend that much time in the trenches. I'm all for getting wording in sync. And I think the PROD templat wording should point to an essay on getting new articles accepted rather than give links to a bunch of policies.--agr (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Metrication in the US

The more I think of it, the more unjustified I feel at having been singled out during that debacle of a discussion for a warning. I wasn't taking any sort of tone, and I was most certainly civil. I merely reacted with honesty and mild sarcasm to a user who had walked in, ruined the on-going debate, and after a reply not to his liking just basically declared he wasn't going to play with me no more and who had been, rather groundlessly as I'm sure you'll agree, accusing me of personal attacks for a good few replies by then. What would you have me do, throw an angry tantrum in response? I refrained from saying quite a few things as I replied, and I really don't appreciate being warned over a reply that I found was succinct, nice, and most certainly in the interest of continuing debate. Being civil does not mean dancing around meadows in white frocks with wreaths of flowers. Reading over the policy I can't identify a single breach, in fact I am positive I steered quite far from any such violation. Would you care to enlighten me as to what I did wrong? An exact diff that you found over the top, and why? —what a crazy random happenstance 17:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This diff [25] indicated to me that you weren't clear on what is expected of editors on Wikipedia. AGF is policy per WP:V and we expect even guidelines on civility to be followed. Sarcasm directed at other editors is not helpful, remember we are all volunteers. That's especially true when your are dealing with new editors. See WP:BITE. On the other hand, I do appreciate your taking a constructive position on the proposed compromise today and I hope we can get the substantive question settled quickly. An informative note is fine with me. And, in case you haven't seen it, I call your attention to this [26]. --agr (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
That's hardly in bad faith. I insulted myself, not him, and I merely summarised my positions rather than going on a four hundred pixel rant which would have been infinitely easier. Guidelines are naturally expected to be followed, but within reason. When you're dealing with an editor who has just offered a reply of about 9 parts correcting my idiom use, and 1 part irrelevant note on nomenclature I think AGF gets to take the morning off, so to speak. I was also simply correcting him (in turn), he erroneously called it a policy. I wasn't being BITEeseque in the slightest, I merely chose to remain on topic. In my book, new user doesn't necessarily equal incapable debater, should I have made that assumption? Would that be less BITEy? Earlier I directed him to the definition of a PA, which he wasn't aware of, and I didn't get an apology for repeatedly being accused of them, which I was fine with - considering he's new. If this is the extent of my supposed incivility, I have to say it's rather weak. I was expecting something more stabby and awesome. If I'm going to get warned for incivility I'd have liked to at least have actually taken the opportunity to, you know... be uncivil for a bit. (Yes, I'm kidding. But I'm a cheapskate, you'll have to make do without the sarcasm mark I'm afraid.) —what a crazy random happenstance 03:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
In the situation you describe AGF doesn't get the day off, it gets center stage in the starring role. We're a bunch of volunteers trying to build an encyclopedia. Conflicts over content are inevitable; personal conflicts are not. Perhaps you could apply your obvious skills in argumentation to helping discussions get past perceived provocations and back on track to a resolution of the underlying editorial issues.--agr (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
That's the plan, yet I have a limited capability to assume good faith with editors that are just an obvious hindrance to any prospect of debate. Next time I'll remember to shower them in unicorns, teddy bears and sunshine, but I still don't think I was being anywhere even close to uncivil. The debate appears to fortuitously be coming to a close though, so it would probably be best to just move on at this point. Good luck with your editing, though if I ever spot you being less than divinely patient be sure to expect me to Yoda-esquely levitate in and chastise you for not bowing to the harmony of the universal zen. :) —what a crazy random happenstance 04:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Amendment to Arbitration I heard you expressed interest in

Hello, ArnoldReinhold. Sorry for the late notice, but there is a request for amendement regarding an arbitration case that you have possibly expressed interest in.Likebox (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

WQA courtesy notice only

User:Ratel refers to you as "editwarring" him [27] - while he does not give your name, it is quite clear what his position is about any etiquette on WP. Collect (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Fitchburg Cutoff Path

Great pic.[28] I started bike commuting to Alewife two summers ago, but never seemed to have a camera on me when I took the long way home, or else it would be too late in the day. I give it an "A" for both composition and lighting! -- Kendrick7talk 03:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I wish I had waited a few seconds more so the bike would have been a bit closer.--agr (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
You can see that there's a guy on a bike there. It's almost better that the focus/distance leaves him generified. -- Kendrick7talk 04:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree, but a couple of seconds closer would still have been generic (it was a woman, by the way). Anyway, I'm glad you like it. I like it too.--agr (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine Arts Barnstar

The Barnstar of Fine Arts
This is for your contribution on the Marla Olmstead article. It wasn't that good, but maybe you'll get better. Good luck! Ilovenewyorkcity (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Scientology in Germany

Due to the moderated discussion format that was set up as a result of AE, your posts and my reply to one of them have been archived by SilkTork, the moderator. I just wanted to let you know that I was fine with the wording you proposed. As for the issue of referring to "the Germans", in the passage cited, Seiwert actually refers to the "media", "public concern", and "public apprehension" in Germany rather than "the Germans"; I'd be happy to follow that approach in the article as well. I remember adding several instances of "the Germans" in response to comments by a reviewer at the Peer Review, who told me I should beat about the bush less and use simpler, active voice constructions. [29]; hence [30][31]. I probably didn't think those edits through properly, thinking too much about grammar and not enough about meaning. If you want to comment further, the moderator has asked that outside editors should comment below the transclusion template. --JN466 16:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see how this could happen, but blanket statements about a people are almost always a bad idea. I'd be glad to restate my comments in the moderated discussion if you think it necessary.--agr (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I liked the wording you proposed. If you want to reinstate it, I believe you should do so below the moderated discussion, rather than in it, per SilkTork's comments at the top of the page. It is a bit confusing, because the page looks almost like it did before, just with a few posts missing. If you click on the edit tab for the entire talk page, however, you see that all the current content is actually from the transcluded subpage. By clicking on the section edit links you would inadvertently edit the moderated subpage. Hope this makes sense. Cheers, --JN466 18:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Compromise language

Hi SilkTork: I'm an uninvolved editor here. I had added some comments on the talk:Scientology in Germany page just before you archived stuff. They were an attempt to find some compromise language. Jayen466 suggested on my talk that I re-add them to the bottom of talk:Scientology in Germany, but I thought I should check with you as to what might be most helpful.--agr (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I had noted that conversation and meant to restore it earlier, but got distracted. I have restored it now. SilkTork *YES! 22:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: iPad editing

Further to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 74#iPad editing?, you can use two fingers to scroll in a box in Mobile Safari; that being said, have you tried the Opera browser app? I haven't done much with it - but at a quick glance, it seems better suited. –xenotalk 16:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. The two finger trick does seem to work, tho a bit shaky. It should be documented somewhere. I haven't tried Opera yet, but I'll put it on my list.--agr (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:American Christians

Hi AR - In the CFD discussion regarding the Category:American Jewish people, you commented that "Are we going to change Category:American Christians to Category:American Christian people?" Well, there is already a proposal to change the parent category: Category:Christians to Category:Christian people, which is part of the batch of changes being proposed in this discussion. Davshul (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this must have been caused by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. It's the only reasonable explanation.--agr (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

proposing a new page

Dear AR,

I am writing to you to suggest adding a page for "The Workshop on Internet & Network Economics". The workshop has been around for 5 years in

5. WINE 2009: Rome, Italy Proceedings: Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5929 Springer 2009, ISBN 978-3-642-10840-2

4. WINE 2008: Shanghai, China Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5385 Springer 2008, ISBN 978-3-540-92184-4

3. WINE 2007: San Diego, CA, USA Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4858 Springer 2007, ISBN 978-3-540-77104-3

2. WINE 2006: Patras, Greece Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4286 Springer 2006, ISBN 3-540-68138-8

1. WINE 2005: Hong Kong, China Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3828 Springer 2005, ISBN 3-540-30900-4

source: http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/wine/index.html


The 6th WINE will be in Stanford, CA, USA. Source: Wine 2010 website at http://wine2010.stanford.edu


This is an interdisciplinary workshop devoted to the analysis of algorithmic and economic problems arising in the Internet and the world wide web. The submissions are peer reviewed and the proceedings of the conferenceis published by Springer-Verlag.

source: http://www.dis.uniroma1.it/~wine09/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.84.51 (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I have created a new article The Workshop on Internet & Network Economics per your request. Feel free to add additional information yourself.--agr (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

principle of least drama

Heh, this is a great principle (from Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion re Malamanteau). Is it actually in Wikipedia policies/guidelines somewhere, or is it just that it should be? --John_Abbe (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There is WP:DRAMA, which sort of implies it. I suggested on the talk page back in November that the principle of least drama should be added, but never go around to it. Maybe it's time.--agr (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I added a short section to WP:DRAMA. Feel free to improve it.--agr (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Obsolete bogies and bearings

US-style railroad truck with journal bearings, Source: Drawing of a railroad truck or bogie from US Army Field Manual FM 55-20, Figure 8-8.
Archbar type truck with journal bearings as used on some steam locomotive tenders. A version of the archbar truck was at one time also used on US freight cars

Question: if you have access to the US Army Field Manual FM 55-20, US Government document, or any such document could you please try to find an illustration, details etc., of the journal box itslf? An illustration of the archbar truck, if available, would also be appreciated. Peter Horn User talk 17:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC) For the reason of my request see the discussion at Talk:Plain bearing/Archives/2013#Journal bearing link, especially towards the end of it. Peter Horn User talk 18:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Not helpfull Peter Horn User talk 19:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, you found my source. :) I did a search on flickr for "journal bearing" and got lots of pictures of diaries with bears on the cover, but I also found this photo set http://www.flickr.com/photos/tanllan/sets/72157607166280257/ He might be willing to release a photo under CC-BY-SA. Getting the word out to rail fans that you are looking for a photo might also be a good idea.--agr (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

White Niggers of North America

Why did you delete White_Niggers_of_North_America? It was not an attack page. 76.179.38.127 (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's unlikely to be used as a search term and it redirected to one specific group, whereas the term WN has been applied to multiple groups.[32] Note that we already have a redirect for WN, and an article WN of America, which is the title of a book. The pejorative intent of the redirect was clear enough for me.--agr (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

im gonna break ur legs nrd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.38.127 (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Merkle v. Collins

Hello, I am Charles Michael Collins. I am not allowed to write about myself but wondered if you would see justice had in this absurd scandal. The famous scientist Ralph Merkle has issued an absurd tirade about my patent and work in a famous book he authored which any second rate patent attorney would see through as a rat's nest of lies:

[33]

Note he only discusses description which is allowed to take up prior art, under law and gives no specifics on any particulars of this Neumann's works that he alleges predates claims in my patent 5,764,518. I had tried to make the novice editors at the Self-replicating machine article to understand that but, such would not let me write as "authority" (even though a competitor named "Buckley" does but also bad-mouths my patent, but not my work). You seem actually knowledgeable on patents and capable of wading through these technical issues and discover that Merkle's attack on my actual working self-replicator (I'll provide vids) is a pack of lies done only to cover his own infringing of it (along with Cornell's infringing on their self-replicator and the "molecubes" device, see at [34]). Give it a look over, if you would be so inclined but note it could take considerable careful research to sort it out truthfully (note that they hate me there for my trying to change things to the truth and that I actually started the article that my competitors have removed me from and I'm quite the only scientist to actually have made a working device). I don't like being an editor and I'm not good at such but I think this huge scandal should be well brought to light and my side told, as well that's all. Thanks.

Charles Michael Collins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.38.242 (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Charles. I'll take a look, but I can't make any promises. One thing that would help is any press coverage of your invention or the controversy. Has there been some you could provide a link to? --agr (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Names of Ho Chi Minh City

Hi—I screwed up on moving Names of Ho Chi Minh City from my user space to article space (I copied and pasted from my user space into a previously blank article, rather than moving the page), which is why Marcus Qwertyus tagged the page. In the {{hangon}} template you added, you noted "Copying and pasting new content over old would seem better approach, as it preserves edit history" as a reason. The article-space version had no history before I copy-pasted the content into it, so I'm a little confused by what you mean by preserving its "edit history". I don't know a whole lot about working on pages that have been developed in user space, so I'll readily admit it's my bad—anyway, I'd just like to get the article moved properly as soon as possible so people can start contributing to it in earnest. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 21:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I misunderstood--should havelooked at article history. Looks like is has now been fixed. If not let me knowand I'll delete it. --agr (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Coupler adaptors

Re as shown in coupling (railway)#Dual couplings and match wagons. It appears that the rapid transit coupler part is "missing". Also, this image shows the bottom of this gizmo. Peter Horn User talk 01:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

After a closer look I noticed that the rapid transit part has nearly the same colour as the platform! Fascinating! Peter Horn User talk 02:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed.--agr (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello ArnoldReinhold, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello..

..i made a comment on Talk:St. Petersburg paradox you might be interested in.--Vanakaris (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:SecurityTokens.CryptoCard.agr.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SecurityTokens.CryptoCard.agr.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2

Because you participated in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34#Does WP:NOTMYSPACE apply to secret pages?, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 0

 
   The Downlink   
 
    Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight Issue 0, December 2010  
 
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 16:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

The Downlink: Issue 1

 
   The Downlink   
 
    Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight Issue 1, January 2011  
 
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 14:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

The Downlink: Issue 2

 
   The Downlink   
 
    Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight Issue 2, February 2011  
 
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

The picture of five level paper tape in the radioteletype article

Thanks for adding the picture of the paper tape. However, I was wondering why you placed this picture in history paragraph versus placing it in the technical description of radioteletype. That later paragraph mentions the paper tape. I thought that I'd ask first rather than chaging your work. Second, wouldn't a better description be, "...five level paper tape used in radioteletype transmissions..."? Thanks! Wa3frp (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I was trying not to bury the picture too far down. But your suggestions for where to put it and changes to the caption make sense. Thanks for asking, but feel free the next time. I take improvements to the work I do as complements. Do you know anyone with photos of suitable teletype (Model 15?) that might license one for Wikipedia? I tried Flickr.--agr (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There are two pictures of a Teletype Model 15 (Teletype is always in caps as it was a registered trademark of the former Teletpe Corporation) in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleprinter. The first shows a Model 15 Keyboard, the second picture shows the interior. I'd also suggest a picture of a Teletype Model 28. You can find one that may be suitable on www.rtty.com. Wa3frp (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 3

 
   The Downlink   
 
    Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight Issue 3, March 2011  
 
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Spaceflight at 09:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

Coupling adaptor

Any way you might be able to obtain the fabrication drawing(s) of this beauty? Instead of the protrusion at the front it could be fitted with a hook on top. Peter Horn User talk 23:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I just saw the adaptor while I was at New York City's Penn Station on a trip and took the photo. That's my briefcase in the picture. You could try the MTA or NJT. --agr (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC on a pop-culture theorem

Hi, you don't know me, but I've seen your homepage and noticed your interest in mathematics in popular culture (movies, etc.) At the moment there is a request for comment at Talk:The Prisoner of Benda regarding the coverage of a theorem that was proven for the purposes of a Futurama episode. Someone with your background might be interested in participating in the discussion, as well as valuable to that discussion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Exotic thank you

Just a big thank you for your accessible introduction to the exotic sphere. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad you liked it.--agr (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

IBM's use of Binary Prefixes

I agree with you that IBM was meticulous in specifying its hardware products to the decimal digit. I further believe that when IBM used prefixes with regards to HDDs they were always used in the decimal sense except I wonder about its software. To the best of my recollection its mainframe software thru MVS basically just reported with a long string of decimal digits, but I am not current and I wonder about PS/2 and AIX? Can u shed somelight on IBM's software reporting practices? BTW, I speculate that the IBM OSes and utilities did not use Binary Prefixes when reporting on memory capacity, allocation etc. Tom94022 (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the Fortran G PLM. p.9 http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360/fortran/GY28-6638-1_FortG_PgmLogMan.pdf: "The minimum system configuration required for the use of the IBM System/360 Operating System with the FORTRAN IV (G) compiler is as follows: An IBM System/360 Model 40 computer with a storage capacity of 128K bytes and a standard and floating-point instruction set." Also IBM had a letter code for memory capacity. IIRC A meant 2k and each letter doubled memory size. So G meant 128K as per the quote. (There were Fortran E, F, G and H compilers as I recall.)
agr (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
In yr quote above IBM is referring to main memory and not DASD. Actually when talking about main memory I believe IBM's practice goes back at least to the Amdahl's 1964 article on S/360 wherein he explicitly stated K=1024. What I am really asking is do you know of any IBM developed software that actually used binary prefixes as input data or in an output report. In yr cite above in Appendix F, page 246, it describes the output formats for the IHCFDUMP dump utility as:
0 = hexadecimal
1 = LOGICAL*l
2 = LOGICAL*4
3 = INTEGER*2
4 = INTEGER*4
5 = REAL*4
6 = REAL*8
7 = COMPLEX*8
8 = COMPLEX*16
9 = literal
The input format isn't stated but I would guess it is either binary or hexadecimal. There is nothing that resembles a binary prefix. I don't have time to go thru the whole doc. but I bet there are no provisions for binary prefixes in input or output from this or any other IBM developed software until much much later. Again to the best of my recollection, no IBM developed OS nor utility accepted any prefix (binary or decimal) as an input variable nor produced any output using prefixes. But that is just my recollection and since you seem to have more software experience than I do, I thought I would ping you to see what is your recollection. Thanks for your time. Tom94022 (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The first IBM hard drive, from 1956, had exactly 5 million characters. IBM hard drive capacity was in the millions through much of the 70s. As far as I know they always used the word million, not prefixes, but of course there may be examples I don't know about. And million meant 1,000,000. Here's an example:http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_3330.html
agr (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
IBM used decimal prefixes as in Mbytes in 1974 in describing the 3340. I'm not sure about when decimal prefixes made it into IBM product literature, certainly by the early 1980s.. Tom94022 (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
As far as input goes, I would look at JCL, which was used to specify hard drive layout. The parameters were all decimal integer as far as i remember. Again, all this use of K and M started out as informal language. If you asked me what 32K meant in 1965, in the context of binary core memory, I would have said 32768. I you asked me what K meant I would have said 1000. Gene Amdahl may have been the first to write down K=1024 and he had a unique reason for doing so. The proposed 360 address space of 24 bits opened up the question of how to refer to much larger memories than people had used before. And likely he wasn't speaking for IBM yet. IBM had strict usage guidelines and I suspect it took them a while to accept his version, if they ever did. --agr (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Helping me with my editing

Hi, ArnoldReinhold. I followed you through your contributions, and you seem experienced. Will you help me become a better editor, like familiarizing me with the Wiki-ways? JacobTrue (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help. Do you have a specific question?--agr (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Not right now. Other editors are helping me, too, and I think I have the references topic (how to format them) pretty figured out. But there's different kinds of reference templates, which still makes it confusing. JacobTrue (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

History_of_IBM_magnetic_disk_drives

Given u were one of the principle editors of the original article u might want to get involved in Talk:History_of_IBM_magnetic_disk_drives#Moving_this_page_again. Tom94022 (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Paternity Test found the actual answer

Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qIWZIVATz4. Ashton argues to the judge that the "intent" of Baez question about the paternity questions was to throw a negative light on Lee (to shore up Baez opening statements accusations that Casey was sexually abused by father and brother (Lee). Upon resumation of the actual question at this site the FBI forensic agent states that FBI agent Savage asked FBI to look at dna tests of Caylee Anthony to determine if they could ALSO determine paternity. Apparently they could tell because she goes on to testimony that neither George nor Lee were father of Caylee. That is all I've got right now. Mugginsx (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I take it that the defense did not ask the FBI forensic agent on what basis she concluded that neither George nor Lee were father of Caylee Anthony. There is no way she could get that from mitochondrial DNA. It's possible the FBI found enough nuclear DNA to rule out paternity from her father and brother, but as our article on mitochondrial DNA says "Many researchers believe that mtDNA is better suited to identification of older skeletal remains than nuclear DNA because the greater number of copies of mtDNA per cell increases the chance of obtaining a useful sample..." --agr (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I listened to the clip you linked (I should have done that first) and there is reference to a statement in the FBI report that says "based on the SDR typing results, the DNA obtained from specimen Q18-1, Caylee Anthony, could not have originated from a biological offspring of the individual represented by specimen K9, Lee Anthony." The legal wrangling seems to be about whether the defense could tell the jury that the test was requested by FBI agent Savage, not the non-paternity result itself. (But shouldn't we have this discussion on the talk page?)--agr (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Near disasters

Category:Near disasters, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello ArnoldReinhold/Archive 1! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for your efforts on the talk page for the Euler number. — CpiralCpiral 17:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Knot theory FA proposed

Hi Arnold. Have you seen this discussion? --C S (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I hadn't, thanks. I've responded there.--agr (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed you've been adding pictures to most of the knot theory topics. If you need any pictures, I might be able to make some. Jkasd 05:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be great. Are you offering pictures or diagrams or both? Here are a couple of diagrams I'd like to see.
  • A simple example of a wild knot
  • A diagram showing why topologists are only interested in knots with the ends joined, i.e. showing the knot being untied by shrinking the ends.
In terms of pictures, I'd like physical examples (rope with the ends spliced or taped together) of the unknot, the two trefoil knots and the figure of eight, at least. --agr (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I was mostly thinking diagrams, but I guess I could to pictures too. As for the second diagram I'm not quite sure what you mean, do you want it to explain that any string can be untied but that a closed loop can't? Jkasd 18:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's the wild knot. I hope it's ok. Jkasd 20:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add it. And, yes, I'd like a diagram to explain that any string can be untied but that a closed loop can't, if you can do that.--agr (talk)

So something like this? Jkasd 20:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I like it, but I'd lose the arrow. It's jarring and I think the image is clear enough without it. --agr (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. For the pictures, I'll need to find a suitable string that will photograph well, so it might be a few days. Jkasd 22:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest something relatively thick, like this thumb. Maybe do one and let's talk about it before you do a whole series. --agr (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I did have something thick like that in mind, but with a uniform color and the ends joined/fused somehow. I'm not sure if I could get it to turn out as nicely as that picture did, but I'll try. Also, I fixed some things about the wild knot picture that bugged me. Jkasd 00:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I went to a craft store and looked for something suitable, but I couldn't find anything. I'll look somewhere else when I get the chance. Jkasd 15:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The pictures are not essential, so if you find something that works, great, but don't sweat it. On the diagram front, another thing that might be useful is illustrating that knot addition is commutative, ideally using the same two prime knots that are in the knot addition illustration. --agr (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
For the connected sum diagram, there is already a little picture sequence showing two knots being added, so I was wondering: should I make my pictures as a continuation of this series, or just as an entirely separate sequence. Also, do think color would be useful in any of the diagrams, maybe to highlight certain properties? Jkasd 15:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a starting point. I wonder if three knots would be better to illustrate commutativity? Otherwise, it's not clear what you've accomplished. As for color, I think it would be a distraction in most cases. I would like to see a heavier line weight in the untying a sniped knot diagram, which otherwise i really like, to match the other diagrams, e.g. the prime knot chart. --agr (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this what you want for knot sum? Also, should I make the backgrounds of all my pictures white instead of transparent? Jkasd 18:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
That's the basic idea, but the starting position should have all three knots distinct, as they are in the end postion. I don't think it is necessary to show the bridges. One way to visualize what I'd like is to make image #5 in your version the first image, followed by 4 then 3, then continue moving the trefoil knot through the figure-eight knot until it is all the way at the top, between the other two knots. --agr (talk) 02:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Should I arrange them in a circle? Jkasd 02:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I think the bottom three are fine as is. You just need to start with an arrangement exactly like the last but with the trefoil on top. You'll need a couple more steps to show the trefoil going through the figure-eight.--agr (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)'

Sorry I haven't gotten around to this yet, Inkscape crashed on my computer and I haven't been able to fix it yet. I've also been busy and I don't know if I have the time to do this anymore. I will finish this last picture if I ever get Inkscape to work again. Jkasd 23:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Finish what you can and upload it. I can edit it further if necessary. I really appreciate all you've done.--agr (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm more than a little bit late on this, but if I also have a bit of experience producing drawings of knots and level sets -- if there's any articles that would benefit from some I would be happy to help put them together. Cheers A13ean (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Great! Well, for starters, I'd like a diagram that shows adding knots is commutatitive. The diagram on the right isn't quite right. It starts with the three knots not fully separated. It might be better to just show two knots on a line that extends through the sides of the picture and show how the can be switched by shrinking one and sliding it through the other.--agr (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I see what you mean -- I'll give it a shot later today. A13ean (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In Mechanicville, New York, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Intermodal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Happy new year!
we wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 20:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Rail freight transportation in New York City and Long Island, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Double stack and Governor Patterson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Plugboard - Wiring of unit record equipment

Neat, very nice, but needs a 2nd pass: --"Cycles were divided into points" - "points" is CE talk I suspect, nowhere accessible in books or IBM user manuals. If not used in IBM user manuals, likely not necessary here. --"On most machines, cards were fed face down, 9-edge first." Ummm, the reproducers (514...) and interpreters (552 ...) were 12 edge 1st so even if correct on an absolute count, the assertion "most" is misleading. -- 0-9 digit time, 11-12 zone time terminology is not supported by IBM user manual timing charts. The 402, 407 manuals make no reference. The reproducers (that I checked) used only digit-time, and it wasn't 0-9, or even 12-9, but 14-9 because of mark sensing. -- "functional groupings" This terminology conflicts with the 402, 407 manuals use of "functional cycle" -- pulse -> impulse (consistent with IBM manuals. You've used both and, if both remain, the reader will need some help in understanding the difference. -- "Zone impulses and digit impulses were combined " They can't be combined as they exist at different times. The reader here needs some help. Maybe something like "Alphabetic ... was transmitted by two impulses ..."? -- "The control panel for each machine type presented exit (output) and entry (input) hubs in logical groupings" Change "groupings" to "arrangements", for example, as "group" is used for group control -- "counters to be combined". My recollection is that counters were coupled. -- "Emitters were sets of 12 exit hubs" Emitters is a general term, there are many emitters. 402 called these "Digit Impulse", 407 Character emitter. -- "Print entries, one hub for each print position. Impulses to these entries controlled the motion of print bars or wheels to place the correct type element under the print hammers" This description is a bit too specific to apply to a 407.

Anyway, enough for now - it's late. Thanks again for a great article; wish I could write. 69.106.236.191 (talk) 09:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. The discussion of the details belongs on the talk page for the article, Talk:Plugboard. I hope its OK if I take the liberty of copying your suggestions there and format them into bullets (line that start with *).--agr (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the WPS button image!

I scoured that category on the Commons earlier today looking for just such a an image and came up empty... Thanks for taking action and creating one! --Dfred (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I looked there too and whipped out my trusty iPhone.--agr (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Wi-Fi Protected Access, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PIN (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear ArnoldReinhold,


My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Fishbowl (secure phone), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Android (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

MSU Student Interview

Hello, my name is Howard Terry User:Terryhow. I seen you were going to be one of the few I will be interviewing. If you may, can we set up a day and time that's free for you?

Sure, can you e-mail me with some times that work for you?--agr (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Im not sure how to email you. I know there's an email tab, but I cant find it for some reason.

Try (MyLastName)(atsign)theworld(dot)com --agr (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Your undo

Hi, there. Re your revert of my removal, I don't see any suggestion for inclusion in the article. This author has been putting this stuff pretty much all over the place. To me it is clear that he is on a promotion tour. And Apeiron...? See Apeiron_(physics_journal) and wp:FRINGE. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:COIC: "An editor with a conflict of interest who wishes to suggest substantive changes to an article should use that article's talk page." So there is no COI issue here. If he is pushing his pet fringe theory, you can point to our reliable source and notability policies, or just ignore him. You don't have to get into a long argument. If he is putting the same stuff in many places, he should be told not to and at that point maybe his duplicative material should be deleted. --agr (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I know, "...who wishes to suggest...", but as far I can see, this was not a suggestion. His recent additions are all seeming nonsense, and all pointing to exactly the same pdf at Apeiron. User is warned on talk page at User talk:HCPotter. For a little overview of his recent edits, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#HCPotter at Apeiron. Feel free to add comments there. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
... and of course, feel free to undo your revert. - DVdm (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:Talk page guidelines "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: ... Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." I don't think the post is question rises to the level where it may be deleted per this guideline. If it is being spammed elsewhere, that can be deal with there. --agr (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I guess you are right. Point taken. By the way, I have just quoted that exact same phrase of the guideline on my own talk page, but in another context (vandalism). Coincidence! Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Glad we've found common ground on this. Hope to work with you again. Be well.--agr (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Greetings,

One of our students sent you a questionnaire via email. Have you had a chance to look it over? Will you be able to complete the questionnaire in the next week? Thanks so much. --Jaobar (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't seem to have gotten it. If they could send it again: {my first initial and last name, no punctuation} {at sign} alum.mit.edu I will try to turn it around quickly. --agr (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Slidex, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bowman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of SyQuest Technology

Hi ArnoldReinhold. Just wanted to let you know that I put a speedy deletion tag on a work you created. It may be helpful if you could edit the page so it does not sound like an ad. Best Hillabear10 (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've responded on the articles talk page.--agr (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Simple(6,74) English(7,74) Gematria(8,74)

Arnold,

On the talk page for Selah, you commented that you "thought English Gematria was strange". I think that conclusion is strange and ignorant. Have you googled English gematria or Simple(6,74) English(7,74) Gematria(8,74)? It's no 'coincidence' that E5+N14+G7+L12+I9+S19+H8=74, G7+E5+M13+A1+T20+R18+I9+A1=74, and GOD=7_4, 7/4=July 4th. English Gematria is not 'just an Internet thing', there are many books on the subject. Please do some research before any further ignorance on your part prevents others from being educated. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again, Brad, gematria is not considered a reliable source. Wikipedia does not accept numerology of any kind as a source, seeing it all as fringe material. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brookhaven Rail Terminal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aggregate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Freight rail NYC/LI

Here's a link you mind find interesting, if not necessarily "usable":Cross Harbor Freight Program Djflem (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a lot of specifics, but I've added a link to two of our articles. If they'd release some of the pictures under a CC license, we could use them. Anyway, thanks and let me know if you encounter further reports like this.--agr (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Nolan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

D-Day carrier pigeon cipher

This note is not even notable enough for a unique name. Aside from an obvious excitement in the crypto circles, I can't see any historical notability. I am going to prod it under Wikipedia:NOTNEWS , so please object if you want to keep it. Fireice (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've commented on the article's talk page.--agr (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Randomness extractor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Secure Hash Algorithm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Railroad electrification in the USA

I was very interested in your comment that the California HSR project needed electrification through Pacheco Pass and the San Gabriel Mountains in order to maintain acceptable speeds. Please can you place a comment on my talk page about where you found this out. I am not going to revert or engage in an edit war, but am just fascinated to know more. Bhtpbank (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


First 3½-inch FDDs

Moved to Talk:Floppy disk#First 3½-inch FDDs Tom94022 (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

MPI MP8AC-3

Just to let you know, I took a WP:BOLD decision to move the article from how you'd named it, to this, to match the naming configuration of the other MPI articles. Hope this isn't an issue! Lukeno94 (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Consistency is good.--agr (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New York City Subway rolling stock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page R156 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Unique identifier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Airport code (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rail freight transport, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Air brake and Double-stack (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Arts on the Line

There's a somewhat contentious discussion at Talk:Arts on the Line#Images needed about the use of fair-use images in the article. I and others believe that the article represents an exception to the normal guidelines against the use of fair use images in lists, while another editor does not. Since you've worked a bit on the article before, I'd appreciate if you could take a moment to weigh in. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Roger Ebert

I don't believe there is any reasonable way that that redirect constituted outing. For one thing, the man is dead. And his userpage had been tagged as being "that" Roger Ebert since 2005, and still is, along with the deceased tag. This matter was already under discussion at WP:AN and I had directed the one user who seemed to feel it was out of line to pursue WP:RFD if they objected, but then you stepped in and just deleted it, citing a privacy policy that I assume you also know is usually dealt with by the oversight team. Unless you have or are planning to contact oversight to have the redirect, the talk page redirect, the entire discussion at the admin noticeboard, and every single revision of the target talk page suppressed you have not dealt with this supposed outing at all So, could you either:

  • explain how that could possibly be outing in light of this information
  • restore the page

Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The user space is not part of the public face of Wikipedia and user privacy wishes are to be respected. The user in question chose a user name that hinted at his identity, but did not fully reveal it. If he were alive, adding a redirect with his full legal name would reduce his privacy and would, I believe, be clear-cut outing. Indeed, I'm not aware of any situation where someone else can add a redirect to a live user without their permission. Now that he has passed on, I agree the situation is less clear cut, but our outing policy makes no mention deceased users. I do see and respect your side of the argument, but I would rather err on the side of protecting user privacy and let the family decide on any redirects, at least until some community consensus is established that permits them. Feel free to start a discussion at an appropriate place, e.g. Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians. --agr (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
You do realize that if I, an arbcom appointed functionary, violated WP:OUTING that would be a very serious situation and you should be alerting the arbitration committee so that they can discuss an emergency action to pull my advanced rights? It is not an accusation to throw around lightly. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
This is not outing anymore than someone noting my real name is Dennis Brown would be outing me. Looking at the contribs makes it clear that he was making no effort to hide his identification, and was in fact, public about it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

In their 20-odd contribs (dating from 2004!), they've not said who they are. They added links to reviews by the man, yeah; that could be an agent, a fan, whatever. He made "no effort to hide his identification", he (or she) made no effort to reveal it, either. No talk page posts at all, in fact. "public about it" - where? Some fans posted on his talk later. Irrelevant.

This person might not want future people to look on Wikipedia and see that "his account" - which you have declared is his - only made a few edits to add links to his own reviews, in breach of "conflict of interest" - it doesn't leave a good impression.

I've never known admins to act like this - deletion and revdel to redirect one ancient vandal account to another user with very few edits on the total assumption that "Rebert" was the real-life person called "Roger Ebert". There's no precedent for this type of action.

B's "Do you realise who I am" attitude sounds very pompous. I'm sure the original intention was good, but it was misguided. We all make mistakes, it'd be best to simply accept that this was one, and not leap to conclusions in future. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was away from the computer Saturday. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I tried to make clear that this is a grey area and reasonable editors can differ but I preferred to err on the side of caution, especially since what is at issue here, a redirect in user space, is so unimportant. My talk page is not the place to hash this out. I would suggest Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians if people feel there is more to discuss.--agr (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Greetings, ArnoldReinhold! If we have not met, I'm AutomaticStrikeout. I've come here to ask you to take part in the survey at User:AutomaticStrikeout/Are admins interested in a RfB?. I am trying to gauge the general level of interest that administrators have in running for cratship, as well as pinpoint the factors that affect that interest level. Your input will be appreciated. Happy editing, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to IBM 7090 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed--agr (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Waterboarding, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cambodian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed --agr (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Prop 8 lede

Did you do a character count by chance? Is two paragraphs correct for the length of the article?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a correct lede length as a function of article size. The California Proposition 8 lede could certainly grow some, perhaps a paragraph on the aftermath, once the dust settles, something like: "The first same-sex marriages after the Supreme Court decision took place shortly after midnight on July XX. In the first month after repeal 12,345 same-sex marriages were recorded in California." Or some other aspect of the story might be summarized. But I felt the blow by blow legal history was best moved out of the lede.--agr (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not as concerned with the content or the exact phrasing of the lede, just that the "need" to trim it so drastically be balanced with the MOS for lede size, which does actually guide lede length by character count. I looked at it in passing last night but wasn't clear on the count of the article. I don't believe we are to count media or mark up in the count but it does have clear recommendations. Just as a Feature Article must meet guidelines or fall out of FA status (for FA lede length should be 4 paragraphs).
Please don't get me wrong. I am not really very concerned overall, just that I felt I should touch bases with you as I may wish to expand the lede and attempt a decent summary of the entire article. Now, in the past, when editing the lede section of controversial articles, I have noticed that the lede is edited down to the barest minimum and that has a great effect of keeping it and the rest of the article a little more stable. I have no plans to do any major changes to the article at the moment. If you are a major contributor I will probably see you there in the future and hope we can work together towards whatever consensus may be need there. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Boundless Informant slides

There are some slides about Boundless Informant: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-data-mining-slides - Do you know if they've been uploaded to the Commons yet? I haven't seen them there WhisperToMe (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

They are not in Commons Category:PRISM (surveillance program), nor in any other logical place I looked.--agr (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Are you interested in uploading them? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
There was a new NSA PRISM slide that was uploaded, but the BI slides have not yet been uploaded. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

File:NASA-LRL-slide.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NASA-LRL-slide.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Prop 8

Hi Arnold. I see that you added material back into the article that was moved to the talk page with NPOV concerns without addressing those concerns. It would appear to me that you edit warred that revert back, without addressing a single concern, including undue weight, NPOV, and biased summary using one side of the actual source to support only one side of the reference material. That is a clear balance issue if the actual article contains the mainstream balance of academic opinion from both opposing and supporting sides. Since I cannot revert without edit warring myself, this should now go to a noticeboard for review. Also, your edit summary makes a point that the information is important, but not how it is important. Could that be clarified. The reason why this was not just deleted and, instead sent to the talk page, is that there could well be a way to simple copy edit the content to comply with our guidelines and policies.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If you found material on the other side that should be included, you could simply do that. Deleting sourced material should be a last resort. Anyway, this discussion is best continued on the talk page.--agr (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, what I was attempting to address was the actions, not so much the content. It is common (and suggested) that contentious material with issues be moved to the talk page for discussion (it isn't actually deleted, but it is removed from the article). If your intent was to add the content back you could have done so as well. However, I appreciate discussion in these matters and waited for such. Yes, I can add the material, if the content has the proper relevance and the consensus of editors is to include it, it could even be placed back afterwards. I am in no hurry and there are other issues with the article needing some eyes and research. Hope you feel inclined to continue to contribute to the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
You say "It is common (and suggested) that contentious material with issues be moved to the talk page for discussion." Except for biographies of living persons, that is not true. Quite the opposite. See WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM.--agr (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Re your restore cat IBM storage devices. The company was built on punch card storage.

1. Device begins with A device is usually a constructed tool - which I think is correct, I've never thought of a sheet of paper as a device, no matter how thick the paper!. Current text includes A component of personal computer hardware Peripheral, any device attached to a computer that expands its functionality.

2. Storage device includes Data storage device, a device for recording information, which could range from handwriting to video or acoustic recording, or to electromagnetic energy modulating magnetic tape and optical discs This is ambiguous (tool or media) - should be updated to specifically include, or not, media. 'not' would seem consistent with the other Wikipedia uses noted here.

3. Computer data storage includes both devices and media - and is NOT named ... Device. GOOD!

4. Category:Computer storage has subcategories Category:Computer storage devices and Category:Computer storage media as I would expect.

Category:IBM storage devices co-mingling devices and media would seem to be the exception (error!).

Would you please, at a minimum and consistent with the existing uses above, rename category IBM storage devices to IBM storage? A better, but more effort, fix would be to split that IBM category into two - devices and media. Then those two categories could be included in the two existing Computer storage devices/media categories.

You might also want to look at why data is used in Computer data storage, but not in Computer storage devices and Computer storage media.

Thanks 50.136.247.190 (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The term device has very broad meaning, check any dictionary (A Wikipedia disambiguation page is hardly authoritative). IBM and its ancestor companies created the very notion of general purpose data storage for mechanical processing. It grew the concept into a major industry which it dominated for some 7 decades, using punched cards as the means for storing data--the only means for the first 5 decades. These were not merely pieces of paper, they were carefully engineered, manufactured to strict quality standards and the subject of numerous patents and even anti-trust law suits. The only storage devices, as distinct from the cards, were filing cabinets made to hold them. The wikipedia category system is primarily designed to help readers find articles. See WP:CAT. Excluding punched cards and 7- and 9-track tapes from the IBM storage devices category is not helpful in that regard. If you feel the need for an IBM storage media subcategory, I don't have a strong objection, but creating categories that will only contain a few items is not generally helpful either.--agr (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Elliptic Curve DSA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Android
Random number generator attack (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Android

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed--agr (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:SCO-Linux litigation

Category:SCO-Linux litigation, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dual EC DRBG, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matt Green (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Dual_EC_DRBG

I saw you replaced some text with a raw quote from RSA's Sam Curry on Dual_EC_DRBG: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dual_EC_DRBG&diff=574217843&oldid=574216638

Given that two cryptography professors have said that Sam Curry's argumentation is bullshit, I think we may be doing a bit too much "microphone holding" for RSA here. Sam Curry's argument is also fairly technical, so a normal Wikipedia doesn't even have a chance to evaluate it, and therefore isn't much helped by Wikipedia reprinting the quote. Sam Curry's argument seems designed to dazzle the non-experts. Unless you can find an independent cryptography professor why thinks Sam Curry's argumentation holds, we should focus on describing the reality which the independent cryptography researchers describe instead, IMO. Thue (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The before version in the diff you cite responded to Curry's comments point by point in Wikipedia's voice. We can't do that, much as we'd like. I tried to add more balance, but another editor took it out. I think this discussion should be on the article's talk page where we all can hash it out. Maybe you could repost your concerns there.--agr (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Advanced Encryption Standard may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • = Attacks have been published that are computationally faster than a full [[brute force attack]]), though all known attacks as of 2013 are computationally infeasible:<ref name="aesbc">{{cite web|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed.--agr (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Freight rail NYC/LI

Have added this report as exlink to NYC/LI freight rail article, which while repeating basic story does add some details, variations, developments.Djflem (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. An interesting report, especially as a source of details on clearances and weight limits. --agr (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New York City Fire Department, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SCUBA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Abort Guidance Section vs System

I've seen it called "Section" in many places, even though "System" does seem a lot more natural. One of many examples is the Apollo Operations Handbook for LM10, section 2.1.1.2, headed "Abort Guidance Section". It's all over the place, so it's not a typo. Karn (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

PROD for Cleveland Circle and Reservoir (MBTA stations)

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I proded Cleveland Circle and Reservoir (MBTA stations), which you've previously worked on, for deletion. They're really two separate stations, not a single station complex of the sort seen on the NYC subway. All the content (including a bunch of history which I just added) is now at the separate station articles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the article has been dePRODed, and is now at AFD. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited EdDSA, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nonce (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of computing hardware, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Social Security (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed.--agr (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Johnson–Nyquist noise may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • good approximations at frequencies below about 80 [[gigahertz]] ([[Extremely high frequency|EFH]])). In the most general case, which includes up to optical frequencies, the power [[spectral density]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Keypunch, Punched Card

It would be really, really, great if you could somehow define both Punched Card and Keypunch as Unit Record articles. The trivial details re Jacquard, Korsakov, etc., only confuse/distract without doing any real service for those topics and should be moved to Jacquard, Korsakov, etc. articles. Thanks, 99.65.176.161 (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to B-modes may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • CMBpol.htm Cosmic Microwave Background Polarization: The Next Key Toward the Origin of the Universe], 2003, Yuki D. Takahashi</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed--agr (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page B-mode (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed--agr (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Solar maximum may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • was still rising as of March 2014.<ref>http://sidc.oma.be/sunspot-index-graphics/wolfjmms.php</ref>]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

fixed--agr (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Heartbleed

Hi Arnold,
Thanks for your contributions to the Heartbleed article. Following this edit, the Behavior section ended up with the following, which remains almost intact today (emphasis mine):

The problem was compounded by OpenSSL's decision to write its own version of the C dynamic memory allocation routines. As a result, the oversized memory buffer returned to the requestor was likely to contain data from memory blocks that had been previously requested and freed by SSL. Such memory blocks may contain sensitive data sent by users or even the private keys used by SSL. In addition, by using its own memory management routines, SSL bypassed mitigation measures in many operating systems that might have detected or neutralized the bug.

There has been some debate about this. Was it intentional that the result shows both of the bold sentences, rather than just the last? And if so, what was the intended meaning of the first sentence? What is meant by "was likely as a result"? Is it that custom memory management made the disclosed data potentially sensitive (as opposed to never sensitive), or that it multiplied the probability of the disclosed data being sensitive? --Chealer (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was intentional. The fact that OpenSSL maintains its own memory pool means that Heartbleed is most likely to reveal data from previous SSL/TLS operations rather than whatever else was going on in the computer at the time, as would be the case if OpenSSL used the memory pool maintained by the operating system.--13:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. In that case, would it be possible to explain why that is, or to link to a source discussing the topic? --Chealer (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
It's nothing complicated. When OpenSSL starts up, it grabs a big chunk of memory from the operating system that will be its own memory pool. That can have anything in it at first, but over time, as OpenSSL allocates and frees chunks of memory from that pool, it will fill with OpenSSL data, and that is what the Heartbleed bug is more likely to send back to the attacker.--agr (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense, thanks. Are you aware of a reference confirming that OpenSSL's custom memory management works this way? --Chealer (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Try http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/heartbleed-vs-mallocconf If your not familiar with malloc and free, any good text on C. --agr (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not overly familiar with standard routines, but for now my question is about OpenSSL's custom memory management. Do you know a reference we could use to show readers that OpenSSL simply grabs a big chunk of memory from the operating system when it starts up that will be its own memory pool? --Chealer (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Ultimately, all memory is assigned by the operating system. There is no other place a program like OpenSSL can get memory. The only question is whether OpenSSL returns memory to the operating system when it is done with it or, instead, keeps it for later reuse. According to Theo de Raadt at http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.misc/211963. OpenSSL tries to do the later in its standard configuration. You can see the source code, with the entire comment he refers to at https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/master/ssl/s3_both.c, starting at line 599. I am not sure if OpenSSL grabs one chunk of memory at the beginning or just keeps a list of the memory blocks it acquires for later reuse, without freeing them back to the OS. I suspect the latter from my read of the source code just now. What I wrote in our article does not make either claim. --agr (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I understand that memory has to come from the OS. There are basically 2 questions for me: does OpenSSL actually request all its memory when it starts, or can it request more at runtime? And in the latter case, can it release some of memory when it stops using it? My reading of the code you pointed makes me think the answer to both is yes, but I can't afford a proper examination.
I'd agree the article doesn't make either claim. However, saying that the probability of the disclosed data being sensitive was multiplied as the result of OpenSSL's custom memory management implies something about that management.
If we can't describe OpenSSL's custom memory management, could we instead directly source that this management multiplied the probability of the disclosed data being sensitive? --Chealer (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Good question. I've responded at Talk:Heartbleed.--agr (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Reform Judaism (North America) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • the rest in the United States.<ref>[http://www.pardesdayschools.org/schools/ PARDeS Member Schools]]</ref>
  • Dana Evan, Contemporary Debates in American Reform Judaism. New York and London: Routledge, 2001).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hunts Point Cooperative Market may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • June 25, 2012, Fred Dreier, DNAinfo.com</ref><ref>[https://www.dot.ny.gov/recovery/sponsors/tiger/repository/NYCEDC%20HPTPM%20Application.pdf Freight

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Swift (Apple programming language), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Garbage collection and Python (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Swift (programming language)

I'm afraid you have misunderstood WP:DDAB; that applies when there are two similar terms each having no disambiguator (i.e. no disambiguating language in parenthesis following the name. The example at WP:DDAB is Montgomery and Montgomery County (not Montgomery (county), which would be merged into Montgomery per WP:INCOMPDAB). We have an entire subproject dedicated to identifying and merging in WP:INCOMPDAB pages, so sooner or later this one will be merged. Any potential confusion arising from this merger can be dispelled by creating a section at Swift under the header ==Programming languages== and redirecting the INCOMPDAB title there. However, in investigating the origin of this page, I see that the page Swift (programming language) was moved to Swift (Apple programming language) without the required move discussion for a controversial move, and can be undone per WP:BRD; I will implement this immediately. bd2412 T 13:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Switching the Apple version back to Swift (programming language) solves the problem for me.--agr (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Good. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
You might consider adding an explanatory note at Talk:Swift_(programming_language)#The_two_swifts_and_the_encyclopedic_neutrality.--agr (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States v. Davis (2014), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fourth Amendment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed.--agr (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Pseudorandom number generator

I like most of the changes that you made [35], but there was one change that puzzled me. The one change is replacing "procedural generation" by "electronic game". Procedural generation is more specific, and so seemed better to me. What was your reason for that change?  TheSeven (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

There are dozens of applications of PRNGs that could be mentioned. Procedural generation seemed like a very narrow example to me. Electronic game is a much broader topic. I don't feel strongly about this if you want to add it back, perhaps not in the lede.--agr (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Scrypt may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Colin Percival]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Railex may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • refrigerated train services were announced in 2013, the Green Express, from llTampa, Florida]] to [[Kingsbury, Indiana]], operated by CSX and the Tampa Port Authority, and the TransCold Express

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed--agr (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of mathematical symbols by subject, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Continuum (mathematics) and Root (mathematics). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed--agr (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ten years!

I created this account ten years ago today. My first article was Frieden Flexowriter, which has grown quite a bit since I created it on that day. (I made some other edits as an IP before that.) Thanks to all for a rewarding 10 years.--agr (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ArnoldReinhold/Archive_1&oldid=1144914699"