Thank you for your edits to the artcile Pendulum. They certainly explain the vectors associated with the diagram. However this information might not be understood by many of our reader, for this reason we have a sister article Pendulum (mathematics) where it might be more appropriate to make these additions in that article, for example a new section called "Vector representation of the pendulum solution".
Treating directly pendulum movements associating them with partial differential equations could scare... ... the rookie-wikireaders!
Hallo there Martinvl (talk),
thanks for taking time in reviewing my edits and reading the changes I have recently done the Pendulum article.
Honestly I forgot there was a "Sister" article called Pendulum (mathematics):
but even after trying to read it and understand it I noticed that Partial differential equations were treated which are not exactly "simple equations".
So I am puzzled about your interesting suggestion about moving these additions in that article. Even with a new section called "Vector representation of the pendulum solution". Maybe we could add it to the "simple" Pendulum article?
Please let's think a couple of days about it before both of us making any change at all at the two articles i.e.
Would you please stop adding Wikilinks where you clearly don't understand either the current phrase or the topic you are linking. Only someone with no understanding of the topics would link [[mathematical physics|mathematics and physics]]. Some of your links make sense, but I'm starting to believe that it's just by chance that both the words in the link and the article happen to have something like the common English meaning. — Arthur Rubin(talk)13:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment "please justify your" (removal) is contrary to the essay WP:BRD; if challenged, the first edit, not the reversal, is what needs to be justified.
the ONLY time I had some kind of "praise" (13:58, 4 January 2013) "Undid revision 531233178 by Maurice Carbonaro (talk) good point; Great Depression is also indirect." in the Poverty article (but was blatantly sarcastic: he deleted two links);
I also see some wp:ownership of the articles in your actions.
I don't see "absurd" as a personal attack. "idiotic" would be, perhaps, but it would still be commenting about the edits, rather than about the editor. Furthermore, I don't see how anyone who is a native speaker of English, as you claim, could interpret things the way you appear to.
For some specifics:
In neutron temperature, any connection between what you wrote and that article would be original research, hence "or" is appropriate.
In authority, your "authority in the Bible" section would be WP:UNDUE without discussion of authority in the works of other religions, and probably without discussion of authority in religion. It would also need references discussiong the verses, rather than the verses, themselves.
The connection between UDFj-39546284 and origin questions in philosophy is not relevant to any potential article on Wikipedia. If you were to link the Big Bang to origin questions in philosophy, I wouldn't object if you had sources.
In poverty, you stated that the current "depression" was as appropriate as the Great Depression; I agreed, neither is appropriate. They are both indirect connections, through the general concept of depression.
All these heated discussions have been really stressing me out.
Anyway I guess that the nut graph of all this dispute is your userbox where state that you are:
"pro-cannabis, and opposing bigotry and oppression suffered by cannabis users".
I can't "undo" or just "delete" your userbox as it would be considered vandalism.
I find myself interacting publicly with you and someone could think that there is some sort of legal loophole where I am consenting on your libertarian political (?) stances because I am not dealing with my "alleged bigotry in opposing cannabis usage".
And a the same time I honestly find odd that someone that left his job in order to study law is not mentioning in this userbox the "legality of cannabis" in such a controversial issue; not even considering the medical cannabis use... duh?!
But whatever... it seems like you just see the "funny side" of "using drugs" and not the devastation of entire families that I witnessed in my life... good for you... I guess...
Honestly I don't think that this is in favour of a Neutral Point of View that a wikipedia admin should have, but as I said I will just try to drop the stick.
As suggested by The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. in the below wp:30 comment (00:16, 8 January 2013) I hope these lines could show that I have "worked on my communication skills" and will help ending the several controversies and to cool down the "heated atmosphere" right here and once for ever.
About your Third Opinion request: I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. It does not appear to me on first blush that this is a dispute which comes within the guidelines of the Third Opinion project, because it appears to be more of a conduct dispute than a content dispute. I did not remove the request, however, because I'm not certain that I'm right, but if I'm not right then I'm not sure what the dispute is about. If this is a conduct dispute, it ought to go to WP:ANI as someone suggested, above (or, much better, just drop the stick); if it is a content dispute, then someone needs to clarify what it is about. Please remember that, as one particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once put it, the purpose of Third Opinions like this: "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." 3O is not particularly good at sorting out complex or wide-ranging content issues, so if you do choose to clarify it, it needs to be something that can be answered in that way. An aside to my fellow 3O Wikipedians: I have not "taken" this dispute, so please feel free to do so or to otherwise deal with it as you see appropriate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
whole hearted thanks for your third opinion contribution. I am trying to follow your suggestion of "dropping the stick" as you can check for yourself in the above comment. Let's see if this could help in "cooling down the reactor". Best of all.
Coming in from 3O to offer my perspective. As I see it there is a relevant and recent content dispute over the use of wikilinks. The first point to consider is that when it comes to see also sections the relevant guideline says their purpose is to allow exploration of tangentially-related subjects and to provide wikilinks that could be used in a comprehensive article. Another point is that when wikilinks are appropriate in an article should be based on the nature of another subject's mention and the nature of the article subject where the link is being added. It appears both sides have been right or wrong in with respect to the application of these guidelines.
For instance, in the article The medium is the message the link "metatheory" would appear to be relevant as the underlying concept the phrase embodies would qualify as a metatheory. This appears to be borne out by the following source: [1]. Another instance involving the Galileo affair appears to also be of some relevance given the following source: [2]. The poverty article is an instance where the links are clearly relevant, but it is legitimate for Arthur to question the need for listing more links in that section since it is already bloated. The regular depression article is probably sufficient.
On the other hand I struggle to grasp the relevance of the various links added to the UDFj-39546284 article, the article on belief, and the one on inverted spectrum (the latter links appear to be a reference to the imagery rather than the philosophical concept). When it concerns adding links to articles I believe that linking "experience" as was done in your edits to the analytic–synthetic distinction article was excessive, but the wikilink to the theory of justification does seem relevant and it should have been kept.
As far as the other content this seems to touch on too many instances for me to sort out every single one, but I would encourage the two of you to engage on this more actively and more civilly. I do not like seeing so many reverts of a single editor acting in good faith and no real attempt to engage that editor, Arthur. At the same time, Maurice, I think you need to work on your communication in several respects. For one your comments are not always clear and tend to drag on when you should try being more concise. Also, if a link would not be of obvious relevance to a person unfamiliar with a subject, it is good to clearly explain how the link is relevant so editors know what point they need to understand or address.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.00:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
first all my whole-hearted thanks for taking the time and the patience in providing me with a third opinion.
Honestly I am feeling stunned for how deeply your considerations and analyses appear to me.
I guess I will need another couple of days to digest all the concepts that you have presented (like your first point where you "consider is that when it comes to see also sections the relevant guideline says the is to allow exploration of tangentially-related subjects and to provide wikilinks that could be used in a comprehensive article).
So please do not consider this as a complete reply.
Please accept my apologies if you felt like struggling to grasp the relevance of my recent good faith contributions to:
"[[mathematical physics|mathematics and physics]]"
... kinda stuff .... where I create hyperlinks.
Well,
First of all I am still waiting for a private answer to an e-mail I sent you through wikimail on Friday the 4th of March 2011 CE @ 12:14 UTC+1 (that makes it exactly 17 months ago for the sake of precision);
I saw you posted a {{/User pro-cannabis}} template on your User page. IMHO professors, assistants, janitors, school staff in general, schools, colleges, university and so on shouldn't generally publicly promote or endorse the use of the so called "recreational drugs": I respect the First Amendment to the United States Constitution but I just wanted you to know that I am against all kind of drugs so whatever Rubin number or Carbonaro number any of us is going to achieve as a positiveintegernumber in the future I am AGAINST all DRUGS. If you are using Wikipedia while stoned, please consider not doing so in the future, especially if dealing with me and posting text on talk pages that are on the border line of personal attacks EVEN if you apologize afterwards. Aknowledging this will get you automatically a Carbonaro number=1.
My alleged comment {{[Please justify your] (removal)}} is a function that has no relation with my outputs. I may have postponed in my token messages writings {{ (...) Please feel free to undo and/or edit... motivating, if possible, your decision. Thanks. (...)}}.
I believe that your understanding of English may be as ... non-standard ... as your understanding of Mathematics. In any case, I don't understand what you're saying, other than that most of the Wikilinks you've added here are surreal. — Arthur Rubin(talk)07:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Arthur,
I guess my understanding of English is okay as my general understanding of Mathematics.
"Nature as She is" is unknown. "Nature as She is — absurd" was so to Richard Feynman and is so to those who agree with him. Each of us has only the certainty of our own subjective perspective. How could it be otherwise?Lestrade (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]
I haven't replied to all your polite, but misguided, requests for another view on your edits, because I've been going after some vandals and WP:RY violations. Please do not consider my silence as consent. — Arthur Rubin(talk)15:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and WP:TALK suggests that the first talk page heading, and most other topics, should be at H2 (two ==) unless they are a subtopic. Would you please fix those edits of yours where you did that? — Arthur Rubin(talk)15:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
* a Law student (you started "in a sense" August 13, 2011, in "which sense" please?),
but to me seems like you behave like some payed editor on Wikipedia.
Maybe you should treat yourself travelling in Italy for a while in order to see how the Vatican influence ... influences almost everything here! I mean ... there are much more important things to worry about in life, man!
And trying to pick up the differences with California way of living... (Take it as an "excuse" to study "Canon law (Catholic Church)"... dunno...)
I think I have visited thoroughly enough web pages to understand that you had recently a couple of bereavements in your family.
Going back to the "General Comments" topic you posted (no offense I hope... but...) I believe that you are a bit too grumpy and karatekizing other editors. Please consider changing to some other "martial art" like judo and/or ju-jitsu for example.
This user believes is a Honour to have Arthur Rubin commenting on this talk page... even if sometimes he looks as he is on the event horizon on making me personal attacks.I consider it a honor to have you commenting on my talk page.
Being around quite a while on Wikipedia now (more than 10 years) I had the opportunity to appreciate the wittyness of your swift intellect.
Please let's not try to spoil our relationship, and don't forget... I am longing to have a...
I'm not sure what you meant when adding the repeated HTML comment "please remember inserting pilcrow: "¶" when paragraphs start explaining new concepts, thanks" to the Truth or Dare article, but this doesn't seem to fit any policy I am aware of, or to make much sense - if an editor enters two blocks of text with a blank line between then, Wikipedia automatically treats these as separate paragraphs. There is no need for the edit to insert any form of notation here, nor to ask other editors to "remember" to do this.
You might want to familiarise yourself with MOS:LINEBREAKS, which recommends only a "single blank line" between paragraphs - you shouldn't use <br> tags to separate paragraphs with no space between them. The same policy also recommends minimising the use of bullet points, except when breaking up a difficult subject, and discourages the use of single-sentence paragraphs. --McGeddon (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2nd century, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CE (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.
Hello. Looking at your edit history, you seem to be saying "But please feel free to undo and or edit... motivating, if possible, your decision. Thanks." or some variant, on almost every one of your edit summaries. This might be intended as politeness, but it's redundant - every Wikipedia editor understands that they are free to undo or edit another editor's work, and that they should ideally explain each of their edits. Your edit summaries would be clearer (and you would save yourself some typing!) if you just described the change you made and left it at that. --McGeddon (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No wikihounding intended - I think our watchlists overlap, I've just seen your "please feel free" phrasing come up a few times. I just thought I'd spare you some typing, in case you were using it out of a misplaced nervousness (it does come across as "I am not sure about this, please undo it if it is wrong"). Be WP:BOLD and let your edits stand on their own terms! And have a fine weekend yourself. --McGeddon (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A good edit summary is very helpful for other editors, and that is the only reason for their existence. May I suggest that repeating "Please feel free to undo... motivating, if possible, your decision. Thanks." is not helpful because it clutters the edit history of a page, and makes it harder to see any content of the summary. Also, it is a message that we all hope would apply, so if it is desirable, it should be built into the software that provides the undo page. Johnuniq (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating at the end of my edit summaries "Please feel free to undo... motivating, if possible, your decision. Thanks." could be helpful if someone like me would like to highlight that my wiki-edits are not definitive but open to further improvements and discussion in total liberty(= "(...) please feel free (...)").
About the alleged "cluttering" please note that this sentence is posted and the end of the main comment on my edit summaries just like my signature at the end of this comment on this talk page.
If you could be more specific on where I have "cluttered the edit summary of the page" that will be very appreciated.
The edit summaries in Wikipedia allow 250 characters of comments about the edit performed and AFAIC when the space wasn't enough I have cluttered the "Please feel free to undo... motivating, if possible, your decision. Thanks." arriving to delete it completely.
Twitter, instead, is oriented towards the comments and the "content" is the "comment" itself and that cannot exceed 140 characters. You may find more info about the twitter format here. But if you believe that my edit summaries are somehow potentially harmful you are more than welcome to consult the "Fixing" section of the Help:edit wikipedia entry and report me to an administrator (it doesn't seem you are one).
Anyway Wikipedia is not twitter.
In Wikipedia the main aim should be that one to focus on the article content and not on the editor.
So... comments on my contributions will be appreciated as well (not just my "edit summaries").
As well greeting someone when commenting in their talk pages with a "Hello" could help establish a friendly attitude towards the other wikipedian which doesn't seem it's your case.
I hope my explanation has been helpful and I will leave it here on my talk page in case of further comments about the matter (McGeddon before you had a reply on his talk page).
Well, it clutters the display; if your comments were necessary, helpful (to understanding the edit), or clarifying, that wouldn't be so important. Also, some people, when correcting or reversing an edit, include the edit summary of the edit they are revsering. (I would have set my "undo" to do that, if I knew how to edit the Javascript). That runs the risk of future editors commenting on your edit exceeding the 250 character limit. — Arthur Rubin(talk)10:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that sometimes Wikipedia is mistaken as it's not run by volunteers but by people with a regular wage and employment contract with the *exact target* of expanding and editing it.
This makes, obviously, lots of wikipedians feel (and administrators like you) that whoever edits has the *precise task* and *duty* to provide an *excellent service* to the readers. And whenever he or she makes a mistake or performs something deemed *inappropriate* they feel the right to scold (publicly and not with private e-mails) that "bad" wikipedian reminding him to "earn his living" (isnt' that a Point of view?).
Arthur, you seem a really intelligent person (AFAIC from the mathematical point of view, because you are a mathematician) and I have added a humorous userbox on my user page about you hoping that this could have helped in releasing the stress that has been accumulating with your personal attacks about my english and mathematics knowledge. I quote:
"I believe that your understanding of English may be as ... non-standard ... as your understanding of Mathematics. In any case, I don't understand what you're saying, other than that most of the Wikilinks you've added here are surreal."
— — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC), this very same talk page
I obviously answered to you in the most polite way that I could be able of, but I am still waiting for an answer to what I answered which I am going to quote:
"Hi Arthur, I guess my understanding of English is okay as my general understanding of Mathematics. In any case if "absurd" could be considered synonim with "surreal" you could be reported for copyright violation (WP:COPYOTHERS). In particular: (...)"
But so far I had no answer from you. And *wops!* here you are scolding me (again) publicly about the content of my edit summaries... Yes, you maybe right about the fact that
"(...) "Also, some people, when correcting or reversing an edit, include the edit summary of the edit they are revsering. (...) That runs the risk of future editors commenting on your edit exceeding the 250 character limit.(...)"
Exactly: "some people" could "run the risk". But AFAIC this has never happened before. What is happening is that you are making a point.
You are not:
mentioning the fact that I have been on Wikipedia for nine years, 11 months and 6 days (but maybe you are you preparing me a "birthday present" for the 10th of January 2013);
mentioning all my edits that have NOT been reverted, it just seems to me like you are just concentrating on the "bad things" that I do and completely wiping out the "good things" that I have done (in the last 10 years).
mentioning the synchronicity of you last comment that has been posted at 10:37 AM, exactly the same hour and minute of the main "welcome comment" posted on my user page.
And honestly I DGAF if you praise me or not at the end. But if you will consider praising me in public in the future that will certainly be considered nice by me.
Last but not least your praises and encouragements could (finally) earn me a Rubin number=1!
I hope this conversation is not going to end in a dispute resolution process but just in case I will ask the intervention of an uninvolved administrator.
That's all for now. I hope this LOONG comment of mine has helped somehow to release this tension that has been accumulating between us.
Please le'ts both try our best to have a nice and relaxed day.
When previewing an edit to a talk page, most people can easily determine the difference between a comment that aids collaboration and one which is snarky and likely to be interpreted as an attempted putdown. If someone is not capable of recognizing that distinction, or is unwilling to act appropriately having seen the problem, they are not compatible with Wikipedia. Edit summaries have a single purpose: to help other editors—they are not a place for boilerplate personal wishes, and talk pages should not be used for snarky comments with attempted putdowns. Johnuniq (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo there Johnuniq (talk), it seems like are not an administrator but I really liked your last post. Honestly. Very neutral, balanced and focused on what seems to be a problem with my "boilerplates personal wishes" inserted at the end of my edit summaries. Yes, I agree with your statement that talk pages should not be used for "snarky comments and attempted putdowns" but it seems like it happened and the whole wikistress risulting because of that is inducing me to take a small wikibreak (or, in any case, to reduce consistently my contributions in the near future). Please have a nice Xmas and Happy New Year.
^Feynman, Richard P. (1988). QED : the strange theory of light and matter (1st Princeton pbk., seventh printing with corrections. ed.). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. p. 10. ISBN978-0691024172.
^Feynman, Richard P. (1988). QED : the strange theory of light and matter (1st Princeton pbk., seventh printing with corrections. ed.). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. p. 10. ISBN978-0691024172.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Axiom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Logic system (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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of writing ancient numbers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sumerian (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.
_02a.jpg)