Jump to content

User talk:Robert K S/Archive03

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Robert K S
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kaldari (talk | contribs) at 16:30, 5 July 2007 (→BLP on [[Al Gore III]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Energy edits

What's your problem now, just ego? Why can't you leave the energy idea from your mess making for sometime. It is not your specialization, by that I mean only the subject energy.

DYK

Updated DYK query On 8 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Honeywell v. Sperry Rand, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Right, the idea is that too many links besides the ones called "Metropolis" would be too confusing for people. The exception is if it is a redlink, so that if, for example, someone wanted to write that Metropolis (utopia) article they would have a place to start (in this case King C. Gillette). It's all explained here. Recury 16:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First generation computer

I saw your prod on First generation computer [1], where you recommended that the article be deleted, then have the same article redirect to History of computing hardware. The redirect is a very good idea. However, you don't need to prod the article to make the article redirect to another. I'm fairly certain that making the page redirect to an existing article is not controversial in any way, shape, or form, so I went ahead and redirected the page, skipping the prod step. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 23:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientist Box

Check this out [2]

Also please add your comments you wrote at Von Neumann talk here: [3]

Talk at top

No problem, and sorry for the overreaction (the problem with edit summaries is you can't edit them if you decide you need to). Thanks for the message. MrBook 14:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited tag in Jennings article

I put the "uncited" tag because if the source is Ken Jennings' website/messageboard/etc., someone needs to cite that as being the source of that assertion. Andy Saunders 17:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Succession Box

I don't think there is a guideline, but per se, although there is a project here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. It isn't really recomended that entertainment figures get their own boxes anyway, it's mainly for monarchys and political sucessions, to have a show that only had 2 hosts, there isn't much of a sucession. I think it just clutters things quite a bit, in the pro wrestling wikiproject, we have deleted any succession boxes for titles on sight. Tony fanta 21:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Trying to reach an infobox consensus here: [4]. Please can you weigh-in with your opinion? 129.127.28.3 12:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed message

The removed message was part of general spamming from that user of the same message to many pages in violation of WP:SPAM. JoshuaZ 05:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Von Neumann

Hello Robert. It may be that the publications in the Von Neumann references section mention his preemptive strike opinion, as well as others. Even so, the article decription of each opinion/statement (or at least some of them) needs to be explicitly tied to the publication(s) with a citation... You seem active on this article, so I'll just leave it to you and other active editors to bring it in line with current standards. I understand most of it was taken from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, but our standards have evolved and the article needs to evolve with them. JDG 01:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert: John von Neumann was born to a non-practicing Jewish family. This is a fact. Your removal of this fact belies a POV problem. Are you embarassed because von Neumann has Jewish ancestry? Why are you so determined to remove such references? Your actions are at odds with the facts, to please, do say why you take this approach. William R. Buckley 05:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert: No my post is not an assumption of bad faith. It is simply a question, put in light of the actions of you and at least one other editor, who as a group have been adding and removing references to von Neumann's Jewish heritage. That battle makes all involved appear to have POV problems. I asked you why you chose a certain approach. To this question, you responded, and for the response I am appreciative. Now I understand *your* reasoning; your reasoning seems sound, and I find no reason to seek change in the article. With your answer, it becomes appropriate to seek the opinion of those others (one or more) who have been engaged with you in the repeated alteration of this small part of the article. Cheers. William R. Buckley 20:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Fields

Thank you for casting your vote on the Einstein infobox. Please now go to [5] to give your opinion on how you want the individual fields modified. SuperGirl 08:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belt picture

It looks like it was a cache issue. It's been fixed. Andy Saunders 15:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Airway Pressure

You tagged this article as limited geographic scope, but provided no explanation of the defects you allege. I strongly believe that the editor placing this type of tag should explain on the talk page, so I removed the tag. I admit that I am mystified: The medical facts and principles of machine design are not likely to be different in Bangalore than in Bangor, and prescribing and insurance information is peripheral and unlikely ever to be exhaustive. If you wish to replace the tag, please explain on the talk page in some detail. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Martinez winner.jpg

Done. Apologies for the error. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 04:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DirectShow

Hi, I'm working on an improved structure for categorization of Windows components. As it stands, "Windows multimedia" was being used for a wide range of nearly unrelated things, including third-party software, file formats, video card drivers, audio APIs, themes, fonts, etc. For the time being, it's in Category:DirectX which is part of Category:Windows components. Thanks. -/- Warren 19:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Reliable source schmeliable source

I trust your psychic abilities, but can't we just wait until each show airs on TV? Winners are not intended to be known to the general TV audience before airing. Let's keep it that way. Unless you have a compelling feeling to surprise and spoil readers, in which you should provide sources (other prerecorded reality programs are vigilant in requiring external references for future shows), let the series continue on its course. Tinlinkin 06:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Portholes" in Jeopardy! set

Hey Robert, it's Faith Love. The portholes I mentioned were a bunch of little round windows, all lined up in a grid pattern, with white plexi or something instead of glass. My episodes are on a Tivo that isn't working right now, so I can't double check them, but my recollection is that they were to the left of the cameras, over behind Johnny Gilbert. I don't remember noticing that they'd gone away until I went to the Tournament of Champions, so they were most likely only visible in the studio and therefore a moot point for the purposes of this article.  :)

Lusciousmango 12:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting entire J! Archive question subjects

I talked to Andy about this and he directed me to you. I'd like to get a copy of the entire J! Archive of responses, as part of our Missing Encyclopedia Articles project. We would use this list to determine what content is still missing from the encyclopedia. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Here is our Missing Article project page.

If you have the entire list of correct responses saved together, I can work on converting it into a list usable in Wikipedia; I have a lot of experience doing this with several lists from other sources. If you have immediate access to this list, in whatever form it may be (even if it contains "What is..." in front of every response), please save it at User:Brian0918/J! Archive list so that I can work on it. Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-11-26 02:49Z

All the Young Dudes

Hi Robert. I see you've capitialised all occurrences of 'the' in All the Young Dudes (song) and even moved the page to All The Young Dudes (song). If you check Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Album titles and band names) you'll see that the definite article is not capitalised in the middle of a song title. Just letting you know why I'll be reverting those two changes shortly (or you might like to). That said, thanks for disambiguating Ian Hunter (singer)...! Cheers, Ian Rose 09:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, mate. I did the same thing myself when I first got here - I've always tended to capitalise all words in song/album titles and a lot of media does the same. However, these are the Wikipedia conventions and since there is method to it I go with it and try to ensure standardisation wherever I can. BTW, that doesn't mean you can't suggest changes to the guidelines - but I never had a big issue with this one. Anyway, I'll bet Hunter was good live. Happy editing and don't be a stranger...! Cheers, Ian Rose 10:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B&H

Can you verify that? - crz crztalk 02:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's better than I expected - but clearly not good enough for the article or certainly for DYK... But it is a curious fact, I agree. Judaism owes Hasidim a debt of gratitude for ferociously clinging to Orthodoxy, and thereby preserving it for future generations, even as everyone else around them was modernizing, equivocating, reforming, and capitulating to the "inevitability" of "modern times". Now, so many decades later, they're still clinging. They won't even hire some gentiles to run it on Shabbos - probably what I would have done. That's commitment! - crz crztalk 12:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes for DYK purposes, but I would love it in the article! - crz crztalk 12:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you run into sysop Ian Manka? He lost on Jeopardy as well... - crz crztalk 21:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL... by as well I was jokingly referring to your recent edit to I Lost On Jeopardy :) - crz crztalk 22:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation

Yep, you got it... someone changed the image in the last diff to the article and then someone added an inappropriate image to a template, so I mixed up one for the other and reverted the wrong one... sigh! Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query On December 9, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henri Wallon (psychologist), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Hello Robert and thanks for the article. Keep up the good work. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig MoS

I kinda like more links, actually, so I don't follow that guideline strictly. There's no harm in them, none that I have ever seen. - crz crztalk 03:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to poke my nose in here ... there is a down-side to many extra links on a dab page. There is a popup feature that makes fixing links to dab pages much easier than fixing them by hand and the extra links confound the popup, making it much more difficult to use the feature. A second aspect to this matter is that there has been a looong standing tension between 'navigators' and 'explorers' when it comes to dab pages; at the present time guidelines and prevailing sentiment favor the 'navigators' (I am a 'navigator' myself, by way of disclosure) who in turn favor clean paths through dab pages (usually one major topical link per line - sometimes two, rarely two blue links, more commonly one red and one blue - but both topical). I can fully understand the 'explorer' who would want to use the dab page as a tool for branching exploration of topic-space ... but that is not the direction the prevailing sentiment is blowing. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust Article

Hello, You recently reverted my edit of Holocaust. Did you consider it to be vandalism? Repentance 20:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it. It's actually a dire issue with the template; most instances, it does not required the square brackets & works just fine. Could you please bring it up? Maybe on the template's talk page?100110100 06:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. It is discordant with the other templates: the other templates DO NOT require square brackets: instantly blue link with the template. In any case, there is seriously a problem, a bug in Mediawiki? that would cause discordances in it's effect.100110100 06:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The template's not working. I'm not going to be on Wikipedia much; couldn't you be so kind to do it for me?100110100 02:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electral circuit

Robert, your comment on this article's talk page is not likely to be seen by many, and will soon get lost when I succeed in deleting that accidentally created article. You might want to take it up on electrical network or electronic circuit instead. Dicklyon 08:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did that, but if you notice, Talk:Electronic circuit is Talk:Electral circuit. Robert K S 10:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, I made a bigger mess than I thought. I think maybe I've fixed it now, copying that talk to talk:electronic circuit and blanking the electral circuit talk page. Thanks for alerting me. Dicklyon 18:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebek effect

I can comment/!vote, it's just that I'm not allowed to close the AfD once discussion has ended. I'll chip in my delete, though in this case. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analog computers, Mark I

It's a lot of interesting detail and I commend you for adding it, but if I might offer, you've put it in the wrong place. That article is a general survey of computing devices and should not include too much detail on any one device. Can you perhaps transplant the Mark I detail to its own article? Robert K S 17:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC) PS A warm welcome to Wikipedia!

That's a fair observation, but a problem is that I don't have that much more to add relative to the Mark I. Would you recommend starting a new article with only a couple of sentences and hope others hang more detail on it? While a little wordy, my objective was to work up to the point of saying that the Mark I, like many mechanical analog computers, became ineffective because its components couldn't move fast enough to solve the problem in real time (which was kind of the bad thing when the other guy is shooting at you!).

Electronic analog computers were often faster than their digital counterparts, and produced 'continuous' or 'smooth' solutions that are very appropriate in situations like fire-control systems. The difference between 1/3 and .333 can be significant when it means hitting the enemy plane or not. The problem with analog computers were that they were a pain to program, as the article describes. Boomer 21:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bushism

Look in the references to the article. its right there. See the oldest book mentioned. It is called "Bushisms". It is from 1992. You can find it on Amazon. I own a copy. The father was just as funny or even funnier than the son. --Blue Tie 23:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the book reference

  • Bushisms/President George Herbert Walker Bush in His Own Words New Republic. Workman Pub Co., May1992, ISBN 1-56305-318-7
Blue Tie 23:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! Teen Tournament 2007

As you may or may not be aware, there will be two teen tournaments this year. I'm in the first which will be aired Feb 5th-16th. I'm Hank Robinson. The next tournament airs in July I think.

THey're having two tournaments this year because of the large turnout due to online testing. Hank el-Bashir 07:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Teen Jeopardy! website is wrong. Semis get 10k and Quarters 5k. Hank el-Bashir 01:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lukoff ISBN

Re: your edit to J. Presper Eckert. The ISBN as printed in the Lukoff book is 89661-002-0. (I have this book.) I can understand adding a leading zero to make it 0-89661-002-0, but what is your reason/source for moving the 1 to the other side of the hyphen to get 0-8966-1002-0? Robert K S 11:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, didn't mean to move the hyphen. I'll fix that. Also, out of curiosity, is the number printed labeled as "ISBN" or "SBN"? -- Jonel | Speak 18:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Callas article "As They Saw Her"

This section and the other quotes in the article are extremely important since Callas is such a controvertial figure. Having quotations from highly respected artists and musical experts allows the reader to look past the simple explanations and get a better understanding of what Callas was and why she was and remains such a significant figure nearly thirty years after her death and over forty hears after her last operatic performance.

Furthermore, quotations regarding voice, artistry, or vocal decline, etc. will allow the reader to get an idea of the variety of opinions surrouding so many aspects of Callas' life. They are neither "original thought," nor "soapbox," nor "repository of links," nor an "indiscriminate collection of information." Especially in sections such as "Vocal decline," it's exactly these quotes that allow the reader to see the diversity and, more importantly, the evolution of thought regarding the probable causes of Callas' vocal deterioration.

"Just the facts, ma'am" might suffice in the case of Sutherland or Milanov or Tebaldi or many other artists about whom there is a general consensus of opinion. "Just the facts" would do nothing to educate the reader as to why Callas was and remains of such historical and artistic significance.

Shahrdad 22:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia entry removed from "Silent Night."

I don't know what is possibly nn about the trivia entry I made, but I do know the phrase I wrote was not "singing" in complete silence -- that would be idiotic -- but SIGNING in complete silence. And this is amply attested to in many published sources, especially newspaper reviews and broadcast televised specials. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamierawson (talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sign versus Sign

For all I know, someone may have "corrected" *signing* into singing; a like is a wise suggestion in this case for that and other reasons. Thanks.

ENIAC image

Robert, Image:Two women operating ENIAC.jpg was deleted under WP:CSD I8 (you can see that here). I8 means the image was copied to Wikimedia Commons. Apparently it's been converted to a .gif, so now it's available as Image:Two women operating ENIAC.gif. I've changed the ENIAC article accordingly. Hope this helps, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, ENIAC and the articles on the two ladies in the picture, are all that link to the picture. I don't see anything linking to the deleted one. I suppose it should be ok now, unless you know better! Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Between Two Worlds

Re. Nazi air raid - I thought it would be obvious who was responsible; I also had a minor quibble with using Nazi rather than German. As for taking out "the Examiner believes", I have a hard time believing that he wouldn't know the circumstances. How would he be able to pass judgment otherwise? Finally, it's been a long time since I last saw the film, but I thought Henry talked Ann into joining him.

BTW, I see you're interested in Jeopardy. I was a contestant, though I didn't win anything. I was in 2nd going into Final Jeopardy, with just over half what the leader had (something like 5500 vs. 10000). I rarely drink, so naturally the category was Food and Drink. The answer was (can't recall exact wording) "This monk has a statue dedicated to him in Epernay, France." I knew I knew the answer, but couldn't dredge it up in 30 seconds. Nobody got it, but since I had to bet everything, I dropped to 3rd. Instead of a trip to an exotic Caribbean island, I got one to Miami Beach, which I had to decline (didn't want to pay the taxes for that destination). Clarityfiend 15:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Luftwaffe wasn't a Nazi organization, as opposed to say the Waffen SS, and the bombing wasn't some Nazi atrocity. As for the remaining points, my memory of the movie isn't certain enough to contest them.

I did tape the show, but would prefer not to have it disseminated on the Net how "Dom" I was. LOL. Ouch. Clarityfiend 18:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to rant against the "injustice" one time. Clarityfiend 07:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Callas Article

Robert, I agree about that POV on the recording section. I didn't write that section, but just added the footnote. I might work on the section later, more just to organize it according to which recordings are generally considered her most invaluable. But I think just listing the recordings and refering the reader to several excellent books and articles is really sufficient. My friend Robert Seletsky has written several truly amazing articles about Callas's recordings, which are easily accessible on Divina records website (EMI has often asked for his assistance in restoring Callas's recordings), and there the indispensable "The Callas Legacy: The Biography of a Career" by Ardoin, as well as Michael Scott's book, Maria Meneghini Callas. I think maybe adding something sending the reader to these sources serves the article AND Callas better than a one-line blurb on wikipedia. What do you think?Shahrdad 16:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Scott Article

Robert, please check the Michael Scott (artistic director) article. Why aren't the footnotes for sources showing up?? I'm trying to find more actually biographical information on him, such as birth date and place, etc, but it's proving VERY difficult. I do have a lot of things that have been said about him and the scope of his knowledge, which I will add soon.Shahrdad 16:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it!Shahrdad 22:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert,

Sorry to vandalize your page - I used the 'edit' button because I wasn't able to find another way to contact you - I'm doing some Mauchly-related research and was referred to you by another party. Please email me at evan (at) snarc.net .... thanks! --Ekoblentz 2007-02-01T16:04:17

Orphaned fair use image (Image:2002-06-18Jeopardy!Set1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:2002-06-18Jeopardy!Set1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EEG 10-20 system

OK I've finished the creation of the page and added the diagrams you suggested... what do you think about it ? XApple 23:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POTY 2006

Your vote was not considered because you didn't insert a valid "diff" link. Please check the instructions Alvesgaspar 20:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

If you really feel that my decision was innaproproiate or in error. You are welcome to take it to Deletion REview. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew effect

Hello Robert,

I object to your using John von Neumann as a example of the Matthew effect. The article currently says "his influential publications were sometimes restatements of the ideas of his collaborators." You seem to be making a blanket statement that, in all of the dozen or so areas in which von Neumann made major contributions, he was only rehasing the ideas of other people. This simply is not true.

For example, the basic axioms of set theory are called the "von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel" axioms; the work of the first two people came much after von Neumann wrote his one paper (the article on this in Wikpaedia is correct). In fact, with a few exceptions, von Neumann only had time to write one or two papers in each of the many areas that he studied. Consequently, it is more often von Neumann's work that is attributed to others than the other way around.

As regards the two specific examples in the article:

On game theory, I believe it is unchallenged that the explanation of economic behevior in terms of games was original to von Neumann and Morganstern in 1944. On this point you may wish to read the banquet speech by the Nobel prize winners in economics [1] who was speaking for all three of the 1994 winners. Von Neumann's first paper on games was actually written long before the book, in 1926. There had been some efforts by a French mathematician to formulate a theory of games before that, but the poor fellow conjectured it would not be possible to devise a theory of optimal strategies, which of course was von Neumann's other contribution besides the connection to economics.

On the first draft report, the brilliance of it was that von Neumann supplied a high-level description of the logical design, independent of any particular hardware implementation. In fact, he specifically took pains to avoid mentioning anyone's hardware. At the time von Neumann was in contact with everyone working in the general area of computing: besides Mauchly and Eckert this included Norbert Wiener (who was working on cybernetics) and Howard Aiken (who was building the Havard machines). All of these people could have written something, but none of them did. As Konrad Zuse [2] pointed out, "The genius of von Neumann is that he selected out of a lot of possibilities what was really important."

Best, -- Joe

References:

[1] http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1994/harsanyi-speech.html

[2] Zuse, K. S., Computerarchitektur aus damaliger und heutiger Sicht, ETH report, 1992. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joseph Grcar (talk • contribs) 02:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

First Draft Report

Hello Robert,

I could not follow some of the logic in your paragraph.  :-) Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the only publicly distributed description of a modern computer though about 1950 is the First Draft Report. As you say, it came out in May/June of 1945.

The excuse about security is a red herring. After March 1946 when Mauchly and Eckert technically resigned (actually were fired) from the University Pennsylvania they were free to write anything they pleased, but they wrote nothing. For example, the Journal of the Franklin Institute published Vannevar Bush's article about differential analyzers before WWII. As the builders of ENIAC Mauchly and Eckert would have had no difficulty publishing a paper about the design of computers. It would have been the first real publication less than a year after the First Draft Report, and perhaps we would now be talking about the Mauchly-Eckert-von Neumann machine. But Mauchly and Eckert did nothing.

The same is true for all the other early people who worked on computers. Once they read von Newmann's report it was easy to say "Oh yes I know that already, it is what I have been talking about all along" but it was never demonstrated that any of the other folks could have written the report.

Part of the genius of the report was the abstract description of a machine. Norbert Wiener deserves some credit for this because in the 1940s he was working on cybernetics (by which I mean the use of natural biological systems as a guide for engineered systems). Wiener organized a series of gatherings on the topic that included people like Mead and Shannon and he invited von Neumann to attend. It is from these meetings that von Neumann got the idea to use biological terminology in the First Draft Report: memory, etc.

Joseph Grcar 17:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC title

Hi, could you please revisit Talk:1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · and/or Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · ·? Melchoir 20:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your wikifu is clearly superior to mine.

Just saying hey, roomie.

Thomas B 22:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Berkeley's role in ACM

I just corrected the article. According to the Babbage Institute source, he was a co-founder of the ACM. Thanks for pointing it out. I was just making some additions to the rather slim article on Berkeley, using the two sources I added to the external links. --Blainster 20:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing energy intro

Hello Robert, I notice that you have developed an interest in editing the intro of energy that's indeed welcome. But, shouldn't you respect the opinions of other editors too who have contributed before you? In other word isn't a brief discussion called for; with minor edits? --Hallenrm 06:35:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted yor comment on my user talk page. Thanks. But, I must say, I believe that on a site like wikipesdia there are no solemn guidelines, except one, that is to produce a quality article that is a product of cooperation of many. I do not hold, or believe that I own the energy article, it is you have made it an ego problem, which is a bad reflection on your image. You have now taken it as your task to revert my edits ( u did not revert your edits totally< i just edited them. If someone believes that I am going beyond the manifesto of wikipedia, let him/her communicate it to me or bar me from posting/editing.Charlie 17:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Callas rating

I did assess the article and reaffirmed the rating as Class B using the criteria for such articles in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece.

The criteria are:

  • It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited.
  • It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies.
  • It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
  • It is free from major grammatical errors.
  • It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.

As you see, this is not a bad rating. The entire rating system can be found here. If you disagree with this rating, and feel that it falls short, you can discuss it on the rating page. The reason I didn't add comments there is because I checked all the boxes on the WP:G banner (click on "show") and am rating as many Wikiproject Greece articles as I can (we are severely backlogged).

The next step for this article would be to nominate it for GA status, which you can do here, if you believe the article meets the criteria. I hope this helps! Argos'Dad 16:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Em dashes

You asked me why I prefer the HTML em dash over the Wiki-provided one. Well, I actually have no preference: I didn't even realize there was an em dash in the insert menu, with those teeny-tiny hard-to-read characters shown.

What I do prefer is any proper em dash over the "typewriter" equivalent ("--") that I see all over the place here.

Your question is actually a good technical one that I don't have a good answer for. It seems to me—and I could be wrong—that my way of encoding it (using &mdash;) may be more universal, so far as browser rendering goes, than hard-coding (i.e., embedding) the actual character. But I don't actually know enough about this stuff to say for sure. What's your take on this? +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken on clutter in text. I thought of another reason I prefer the &mdash; method, which is that it makes it obvious when editing text which dash (em or en) is being inserted. It can be pretty hard to tell one dash from another in a mess of text. (Compare en dash–en dash to em dash—em dash.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edification

Sorry, what AI meant is that
is outdated, &
should be used instead.100110100 01:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O, I don't know.100110100

Schloss Esterhazy

Ok, I'll try to do these links soon. Opus33 03:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

Hello!

I am a hungarian, so I know the history of my country. That flag exists from 1848. Please dont revert my edits. Thank you.

I replaced the Hungarian flag with the official flag (Kingdom of Hungary), which was used between 1867-1918. Do you agree with it?86.101.112.193 17:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you help. As I saw, you changed the flag to Austria-Hungary flag. Thank you. You should know, that I just saw that there is an austrian flag at the birth place, so I decided to change it, because it was not correct, and am not against the articles neutrality. Hosszú és eredményes életet! ("live long and prosper") :)

Gloriette

Updated DYK query On 6 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gloriette, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 02:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to I Lost On Jeopardy?

If you know the whens, whys, hows, and whos of this article's deletion, please leave me a message here. Also, if you know of a surefire way to search for the AfD discussion for an article, please inform me. Whenever I search on an article that I know used to exist but has since gone redlinked, I never know exactly how to figure out what happened to it. Thanks. Robert K S 13:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, there's nothing in the Deletion Log for that page. Andy Saunders 13:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, apparently, there is. It seems to have been deleted by one User:Mel Etitis without an AfD. Robert K S 14:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Password difficulty

Your version looks fine. Answered on my talk page. -- Fyslee/talk 11:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image use at M. C. Gainey

Hi, regarding your question about the image removal, the use of this image is applicable only to discussion and commentary about his character on Lost. The first point of our fair use policy is that images can be fair use if no free equivalent is available. Because the article is about M.C. Gainey, not Tom it would be resonable to say that a free image of him is obtainable. For example, the change I made at Rodrigo Santoro's article here replaced an image of Rodrigo as Paulo with a image of Rodrigo himself.

In summary, having an actor's character appear in their infobox basically boils down to having an image for the sake of having an image. Technically, it isn't really identifying the actor, but their character instead. Hope this helps, UnfriendlyFire 14:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

"It is obvious to anyone who has heard it" doesn't count as a source, nor as an explanation — especially when it isn't mentioned. If someone doesn't give an edit summary (which is strongly requested as a courtesy to other editors) or a source (which is required by policy), what is the basis for assuming good faith? If no source is given but an edit summary is, then I assume good faith; if a source is given and no edit summary, then I assume good faith; when neither is given, good faith is irrelevant. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that Wikipedia:Edit summary is an important documant, and includes answers to a number of your points, especially the one about summaries for minor edits. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that probably I can only say that, if you'd walked in my shoes (or those of any editor spending significant time vandal-fighting, especially in problem areas) you'd perhaps understand better. Popular-music articles are plagued by people making changes that, to a non-fan, seem completely innocuous, but are in fact both incorrect and deeply PoV. Distinguishing the genuine from the (majority) non-genuine is only really possible if the editor explains and gives a source; the choice is between allowing a hundred bad edits and disallowing one good one. When an explanation or source (preferably both) is given, I tend to assume good faith (which probably leads to a fair few bad edits getting through, to be honest); when neither is given, I don't see that I have a choice if I'm to take editing seriously. In more stable, less fanatic-ridden and adolescent-haunted parts of the encyclopædia it's possible to assume good faith far more often. But note that no-one, not even the sainted Jimbo, assumes good faith beyond a certain point.
Note, incidentally, that I do leave unexplained and unsourced edits when they're clearly correct and good faith, as in your hypothetical example; you only see the ones that I revert, not the ones that I don't (they don't show up in my contributions...).
The comments at the top of my Talk page are recent additions, placed reluctantly after I'd spent years having to deal with the same, monotonous abuse/pointless queries, and to go into the history, copy the poster's details, add {{unsigned}}, then respond. If you'd been in a position that forced you into adding such notices (and having one's User page permanently protected), as many editors, especially admins, have been, you'd be more sympathetic.
You say that you realise that it's only one or two good edits that I mistakenly revert (I'd say that it's not a mistake, exactly, but that's a minor point); I hope (I believe) that you're right — which is why I continue to edit in the way that I do. The number of bad edits that would otherwise survive is enormous. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

restore new edit in Mass-energy equivalence

Robert: I don't want my edit to clash with your reversals iin Mass-energy equivalence. That old version is really not adequate. Please kindly restore my new edit. I am at your disposal for comments.Edgerck 15:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John von Neumann

Hello. You reverted my edits, but I dont know why. I just added his second name (middle name) and his title of nobility, that were part of his name. Could you explain me your reasons please. Thanks. --Koppany 15:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. I am not sure whether he used his nobility title, but his middle name (Louis) is mentioned in several US-sources, university publications. According to the University of Miskolc's webiste www.uni-miskolc.hu/~matpi/doc/neumann.doc he published under the name John Louis Neumann. Professor Lee also mentions him as John Louis Neumann http://www.dgatx.com/computing/people/JAN-Lee/hs.html. See also the followings: http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~history/VonNeumann.html http://etsiit.ugr.es/alumnos/mlii/VonNeumann.htm http://www.bnv-gz.de/gz_stadt/schule/dzr/Homepage/johann/NEUMANN.HTM Also referred as John L. von Neumann. http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/96summary/ Of cousre these are not original sources, like US-passport, but are enough base to assume he was naturalized under this name. --Koppany 16:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

truth in WP:NOT

Robert: First, I liked your thoughtful comments. I was reading the WP link you provided for your phrase "Wikipedia makes a point of asserting that it does not intend promote truth.", which you linked to WP:NOT. I could not find the word "truth" in that page. Am I at the right page or did I miss something? Thanks. --Edgerck 20:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realized too late that I linked to the wrong page. The actual link is WP:V. "Wikipedia is not truth" may have been at WP:NOT at one point, but it is not any more. Actually, a few months back, there was a raging movement to remove the "not truth" language from policy pages, or modify it, on epistemological grounds. I don't know what the status of that movement is, but in any case, the "not truth" language is still there as of today. Robert K S 20:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction. Edgerck 23:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, I read the page WP:V and I wouldn't use it to support the affirmation "Wikipedia makes a point of asserting that it does not intend [to] promote truth." In fact, I think it says otherwise. What I read in WP:V is that WP supports verifiability (as objectively verified truth) versus truth (as subjective or intersubjective truth), meaning a stronger (because neutral) form of truth than what people usually say as "that is the truth" -- meaning their truth. In particular, it is well-known that two different people living the same moment will have different, albeit still truthful, recollections. I wonder what you think about this. I also think that that policy should be changed to avoid the confusion. But I want to hear you before I suggest that. Thanks.--Edgerck 23:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on your talk page, but I don't know how much clearer the page can be than "...Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Robert K S 23:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert: Thank you again for your comments in my talk page. If I understood your last comment, I showed that I understand WP verifiability. Perhaps you could clarify the issue in the WP:V talk page as you may be able, with your WP experience, to address the issues in terms that are better intersubjectively for that collective than mine. Edgerck 20:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over those pages again, I believe I have spoken my peace, and can contribute little else to the discussion. Robert K S 21:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mass-energy equivalence

Robert: You asked about this equivalence. My reply has three points, supported by WP:RS sources. HINT: If you don't have ref. 2, search in books.google.com, for "relativistic mass photon lev", click on first item (okun's book); open in the book page 117 and look for "third argument" at the end of the page.

  • Mass can be converted to massless energy according to E=mc2. Every mass corresponds to energy. [1]
  • Energy can be converted to mass according to m=E/c². Not every energy corresponds to mass. [2]

As you see, the two statements above are already not symmetrical in the roles played by mass and energy. Now, comes the third point.

  • Conservation of mass and energy: the concept of mass-energy equivalence complements but does not unite the concepts of conservation of mass and conservation of energy. While an energy does indeed correspond to any mass, the opposite is not true as mass does not correspond to every energy. Mass is not completely equivalent to energy. In special relativity, in spite of popular philosophical discussions otherwise, mass and energy are not two forms of the same thing. [2]


Hope this is useful. BTW, the name mass-energy equivalence is fine because an energy does indeed correspond to any mass. Edgerck 07:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the "As you see" part that gets me. I don't see. And why is it that you need to cite an obscure physicist's obscure paper from 1991 to reference such? Shouldn't any undergraduate-level physics textbook suffice? Robert K S 12:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you stopped there, rather than venturing to #3 without going through #1-2. It's actually quite simple to do: You sub "mass" for "energy" and vice-versa in both statements and see how both look compared to the original statements. Do you see an asymmetry? Edgerck 19:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, use ref.1 for #2. Edgerck 19:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to take more than repeating yourself to convince me. I'm convinceable, but I'd like to see some explanations. No, I don't see the asymmetry inherent in E = mc2. Robert K S 20:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert: I'm not trying to convince you. I am just presenting the information and asking a question. I don't believe in proselitism.

Just to clearer, here are the statements, numbered:

  1. Mass can be converted to massless energy according to E=mc2. Every mass corresponds to energy.
  2. Energy can be converted to mass according to m=E/c². Not every energy corresponds to mass.

Perhaps if you could write down both forms below, for 1 and 1', 2 and 2', making those subs (sub "mass" for "energy" and vice-versa) for the ' version. You could then highlight in HTML what you might see. Edgerck 20:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm understanding what you're saying, you want me to fallaciously rewrite E = mc2 as m = Ec2. I don't see what that would prove or disprove. I take issue when you say "Not every energy corresponds to mass." If you are able, I would like you to explain how m = E/c2 implies this. PS, you should be trying to convince me because I'm asking to be convinced, so that I can be in harmony with you re: your edits to mass-energy equivalence. Robert K S 23:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert: no, that would too simple (even though useful as you intuitively see). Why do you read "m" when I wrote "mass" and "E" when I wrote "energy"? Leave the formula alone! Work on the two phrases. BTW, I think Socrates was right in not trying to convince anyone. Each person's mind is their own castle. Edgerck 23:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll play along.
  1. Energy can be converted to energyless mass according to m=E/c². Every energy corresponds to mass.
  2. Mass can be converted to energy according to E=mc2. Not every mass corresponds to energy.

I suppose the asymmetry you want to me to be identifying is "energyless mass", a supposed contradiction in terms? Robert K S 00:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the first but fundamental one. You can see that the other sentences are also in contradiction? Within the same sub'ed group and also with the original group?

So, there is massless energy but there is no energyless mass. If mass and energy would be two aspects of the same thing (more precisely, completely equivalent), this would not happen. Please tell me if this is clear, otherwise it is better not to move to equations yet. I say that physics is about abstractions, and equations are just a more or less convenient tool to express the abstractions. Edgerck 00:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I may take a while to reply. So, let me leave "advance reading" for the next two steps in understanding the great question of why mass and energy are not two forms of the same thing.

Number 1: Invariance and conservation are not the same. It is clearer to reserve the term "change" when discussing conservation, and use the term "difference" when discussing invariance. If a quantity is invariant, then it will have the same measured value in any inertial reference frame. For example, momentum of an isolated (free) system is not an invariant quantity, since two observers in relative motion, each applying the same operational definition of momentum, may obtain different values for the momentum of the system. If a quantity is conserved, then its value, as measured in a particular inertial reference frame, does not change over time. The momentum of an isolated (free) system is a conserved quantity, and will maintain a constant value throughout some process. [1]

Number 2: In classical physics, the 3-momentum vector (px, py, pz) of an isolated system is a conserved quantity. In special relativity (in units in which c=1), the energy momentum 4-vector (E,px,py,pz) replaces 3-momentum as the conserved quantity; the magnitude of the 4-vector is computed as (E² - px² - py² - pz²)1/2. The mass of the system is defined to be the magnitude of the energy-momentum 4-vector and is thus an invariant. The energy-momentum relation (mc²)² = E² - (pc)² follows from this. [1]

References

  1. ^ a b c Lev Davidovich Landau and Evgenii Mikhailovich Lifshits, (1987) Elsevier, ISBN 0750627689.
  2. ^ a b Lev Borisovich Okunʹ, The Relations of Particles, (1991) World Scientific, ISBN 981020454X, p. 116-119, 127.


Robert: You left a message in my main talk-page. I moved it to the RoI experiment's talk page and answered. The reply is at RoI talk Edgerck 01:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my answer on the 'subparticle' -- it was already there, below where you posted.Edgerck 00:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Episode IV

Sorry I reverted your recent change whilst trynig to quickly revert the vandalism by 81.244.122.79. You were editing a version that had been trashed.

reflist

{{reflist|2}} aads a 2-column list of references. I don't think Internet Explorer (which is probably what you're using) supports that, but it's helpful for users on other browsers. CloudNine 17:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The poor energy article

As noted, Hallen, after totally screwing up the energy article, is now going to actively prevent anybody from writing a summary of science-based energy. I really see no alternative but to get him banned from editing the thing. Otherwise we're never going to be left alone to write it. I'm open to suggestions.SBHarris 21:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC) SBHarris 21:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John von Neumann

The source (or one source) for all that material you removed is the Macrae biography cited at the bottom of the article. Robert K S 23:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any online links we can direct readers to or would we need to go to the library, eeekk :). It just seems that the info about his exploites as a prodigy had grown rather large. As an "ignorant" person on the subject (as pointed out by William Buckley) I was wondering if all that material was true or maybe some of it was made up. Anyways, I am big into making sure that readers can see sources for themsleves and that articles are well sourced. No biggie and thanks for your note. Cheers! --Tom 12:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply and yes it goes make sense and help. Cheers! --Tom 13:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Univac-model.jpg

checkY Done ^demon[omg plz] 10:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God

Are you saying that Gothic is not the same as Old English? (Removal of: "The capitalized form "God" was first used in Ulfilas' Gothic translation of the New Testament, to represent the Greek Theos.") I'm kidding of course, but I've already started enough trouble on that page and I didn't want to point out that little factoid. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but it was a silly line too. Your edits looked good -- I'm so used to POV warring on that page that I am pleasantly surprised when someone makes perfectly rational, needed edits. Thanks! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{further}}

Hey, I've renominated the template for deletion. Let's push this template thru to deletion, and get as many of your like minded friends to vote.[6]199.126.28.20 03:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eleusinian Mysteries

Thanks for your work cleaning up the Eleusinian Mysteries article. Good job! Just one question--how come you chose to remove the informative parenthetical about the seasonal variation in Greece? (I.e., that the unproductive season comes in summer, but the Demeter myth is usually interpreted as referring to winter?) Robert K S 22:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I found the sentence confusing since later there is a discussion about the fallow season being the summer and the Eleusinian Mysteries occuring in September with Persephone in the world from then until spring. If we can source and make it internally consistent, I would like to add the concept back.
Thanks for your kind words on my edits. Argos'Dad 22:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, that is an interesting perspective and I agree that it is worth mentioning, as it does in that article, as an alternative theory. Why don't you go ahead and add it? Argos'Dad 01:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy

Is there a reason you notified me of this 3rd nom? --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 05:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On user:enormousdude

I just want to encourage you to stand firm against this editor. If you have read over his talk page, then you are aware the this editor has been in one content dispute after another. His modus operandi seems to be to key on one texbook definition that he likes, and to treat it (or sometimes his own interpretation of it) as gospel. On the special relativity article, it took a while before this editor finally gave up. --EMS | Talk 04:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP on Al Gore III

I've already commented on this at WP:AN and you've already read what I had to say. Your edits are inconsistent with our policy on the biogs of living people and if you don't stop reverting back to a version of the page which I have previously informed people to be inappropriate, you will be blocked from editing. We do not need and will not tolerate any article being edited to focus prominently on legal trouble. Nick 14:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. An article primarily dedicated to someone's run-ins with the law (especially when these run-ins are only notable because the person is related to a celebrity) is not compatible with Wikipedia's NPOV or BLP policies. And before you start assuming this is a whitewash campaign by Gore-loving Wikipedia admins, you should review some of my edits to the Jenna Bush and Barbara Pierce Bush articles: [7] [8] [9] (for example). We take these policies very seriously and they are not negotiable. Please drop me a line on my talk page if you have further concerns. Kaldari 15:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I would love for this issue to finally be settled by ArbCom, I'm afraid there is no chance they would accept it since the other steps in the mediation process have not been used yet. You may want to investigate those first. Kaldari 16:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you add at least as many positive facts about Al Gore III's life as negative facts I think that will assure that the article stays NPOV. Obviously that's going to be somewhat difficult since the only reason anyone ever publishes something about Al Gore III is because he does something potentially embarrassing to his father. Arguably, it's impossible to keep such an article truly NPOV, but unfortunately I have to try anyway. Kaldari 16:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_K_S/Archive03&oldid=142691782"