User talk:ArnoldReinhold

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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!


[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:

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.""

[edit] 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)

[edit] KW-26

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Reply notification

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

[edit] Vernam cipher

Moved to Talk:Vernam cipher

Did you know has been updated
and a fact from the article security token, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you have another interesting fact to submit, then please suggest it at the section's talk page.

[edit] Multilicensing

I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Multi-licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License versions 1.0 and 2.0
I agree to multi-license my text contributions, unless otherwise stated, under the GFDL and the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license version 1.0 and version 2.0. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same, so if you want to use my contributions under the Creative Commons terms, please check the CC dual-license and Multi-licensing guides.

The above also applies to my contributions to articles on transportation topics.

Minor edits multi-licensed into the public domain
I agree to multi-license my eligible text contributions marked as minor edits, unless otherwise stated, under the GFDL and into the public domain. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same, so if you want to use my minor edit contributions in the public domain, please check the multi-licensing guide.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] road-stub?

Thanks for writing some articles on the MBTA stations. One minor thing - you should probably tag them {{rail-stub}} rather than Template:Tl 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Jerome H. Lemelson

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Re: Classified information

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


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Welcome to WP:SPACE!

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

Have fun with it.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Thanks!

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

Cedars 08:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 1460 redirect

Changing the redirect was a better fix. Thanks

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 • (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Martin Meehan

Your return to the Martin Meehan discussion page and the one sentence matter would be appreciated.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Punched card

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] O_0...

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] F.H.A.

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Haha

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] book

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


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] Copyright violation in Motoman

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)