User talk:Kenwarren/Archive 2

Talk archives
 * Archive 1 (through 31 July, 2005)

Pin-up artists
Thanks greatly for the fix-up of the template! Where's that documented? I looked, but couldn't find it.

Regarding Olivia de Berardinis, the last name should be de Berardinis, a la Olivia de Havilland. I've fixed up the cats. Ken 01:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, (I did not fix up any template) I only put a colon in front of the categories used in your user pages so they did not show up in the categories. --AI 02:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

About "de Berardinis," I think de should not create it's own alphabetical listing under lowercase d in the categories, it should be listed with all the other D's. --AI 02:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I don't mind. I'm using that page as a base template for creation of a number of stubs for pin-up artists. However, prepending the colons seems to have broken the categories when I the template into the page. I'm going to leave it as is, because the pages typically need edits after initial creation anyway. Thanks!
 * The way de was handled in Olivia de Havilland was to capitalize de in categories. I've done the same thing in Olivia de Berardinis. Ken 02:33, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

HIV Progression Rates
Re the copyvio alert: hard to say what the makeup is. It's not a single article: Googling on some phrases like processed peptide epitope presented in the groove leads to different papers, and much of it doesn't lead to anything. Biggest problem is that it simply isn't encyclopaedic: it's jargon-choked researcher-speak that ought to be flagged with Template:Technical even if it's not a copyvio. Tearlach 02:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm moderately sure about the overall copyvio status, even if the Wikipedia article was patched together from multiple sources. If the References section is to be believed, it's actually a fairly recent article (there's a cite from 2002). The article as a whole seems to hang together, at least as much as I can tell through the jargon. It's not surprising to get hits on some of the phrases. Most technical fields have their own vocabulary and grammar, which results in common patterns in written materials. Ken 03:01, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Even so, there are recognisable longer chunks in common with a paper called Clinical Trials of HIV Vaccines here: for instance, In addition, HIV-1 specific CD8+ CTL activity and has also been demonstrated in a small subset of uninfected, sero-negative commercial sex-workers in The Gambia and in Kenya. This suggests that transient infection may have occurred inducing protective immunity mediated by CD8+ CTL.
 * I just spotted Prurigo, by the same editor. Tearlach 03:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Space opera and High fantasy
As you might see I've already done some work on the Space opera, although that I haven't read many works. I must say that half of these works I've left out are cited by many people as classic works and favourite ones.

However, in a twist of fate, I've read more high fantasy. Currently, I'm long past those times, when I read every fantasy book, which was translated here, but at odd moments between some couple of months, I read some fantasy books (like the Eragon 6 months ago). Now I'm looking forward to read some more books of the Space opera as I consider the two genres close to each other (big conflicts between the evil and good in imaginary universes).

Would you like to help me rejuvenate the High fantasy page? Contrariwise to this article, I think it can use some more information and sources. However you stated that you are big fan of Space opera and if you doesn't have insterests in the fantasy genre - it isn't such a big deal, but I can use some helping hand. Painbearer 14:37, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article looks weak. I've read a lot of high fantasy, and especially a lot of the fiction that high fantasy grew out of (Some of Lord Dunsany's works, for example). I'd like to get a concensus on Space opera before I tackle that, though. Ken 15:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help?
See AMA_Requests_for_Assistance. -- Egil 14:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Standards of measure

 * Rktect 08/08/05
 * Ok Ken, here's the problem. Egil doesn't know much about
 * ancient weights and measures, he admits that,
 * but he has taken it upon himself to systematically
 * revert and delete everything I put up because
 * I disagreed with him that Ole Roemer invented the mile.
 * I further had the audacity to insert the word allegedly.


 * From what I can tell he's a good patriotic Norwegian
 * rather than a scholar.
 * Here is what Egil said to one of a number of other people
 * he is encouraging to join him in his campaign.
 * he is encouraging to join him in his campaign.

"I really have a hard time following up his contributions. I'm sure there may be much of value there, but I have a really hard time filtering out what is valuable, and what is, at best, original research. So I guess the easiest thing is simply to revert everything. But it is a lot of work. How do you suggest one handles this? -- Egil 14:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)"


 * Now the reason Egil has a problem is that it simply isn't his field
 * he has no interest whatsoever in the subject mnatter
 * On the other hand he's a good behind the scenes organizer
 * consequently I now have to deal with a bunch of Egil sock puppets
 * many people voting for deletion of the articles are new users.


 * Here is the response from the latest recruit.

"I take it this has to do with ancient weights and measures and the pages split off from it and medieval weights and measures. Any others? I haven't really followed that, just noticed some activity with the vague idea that eventually we'd have to go in and do some cleanup work on it. I think you hit the nail on the head, but I haven't looked in detail at many of these changes. Are most of the recent ones by this contributor? I'll watch it for a while now, and take a look at hte pages as they stand now.and see if I have any better ideas. Gene Nygaard 15:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC) I've given up, and posted this request: Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance#Pseudoscientific_attack. -- Egil 14:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC) I noticed your removal of some of this at mile, and hadn't noticed any subsequent change back. I'll look at that and see if I can help out. Gene Nygaard 15:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)"


 * This user has now twice reverted the addition
 * of some references to that page...


 * I have attempted to explain to Egil that his charges are false.
 * Citing books in their fifth printing is not original research
 * I have been researching and collecting material on ancient weights and
 * measures since the seventies. I actually do have a a lot of material
 * that would be considered original research since it involves field
 * measures of sites, but that's another story.

roadtrip

Yes, please
Answer from Egil: I have no problem with meditation. Other than that the meditation process currently seems to be rather backlogged. As you have seen, I did post a request for assistance on AMA Requests for Assistance, but that got bombed. (Reverting that is probably not going to do any good.) It seems this person is not aware of the Policies and guidelines, which easily can make the process difficult, or perhaps impossible to handle. Anyway, how does this go about? I see no point whatsoever in bothering about, nor responding to, any of the attacks against my person. But if there is any point in doing so, I can of course give a review of what is wrong with the contributions of rktect. Just tell me where. -- Egil 05:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

conditional agreement
Rktect 8/9/05


 * The issue to be resolved is whether user Egil is guilty of Libel.
 * His defense is that everything he has said is the truth.


 * His defense fails if he or others acting as his agents
 * have been reverting or deleting true statements
 * on the grounds they are "pseudoscience".


 * or if he has systematically reverted or deleted
 * content he doesn't have the technical expertise to understand
 * and then falsely labled it "pseudoscience" to defend his actions.


 * or made false claims that material is "pseudoscience"
 * or "original research"in asking that articles be deleted


 * Egil
 * "There are also claims that the metric system
 * really is based on a Sumerian cubit,
 * which is by definition 500 mm. "

Try going to Metrum and checking the claim out.


 * Egil
 * "Oh yes, they knew the exact diameter of the Earth."


 * That claim [that ancient geographers, surveyors cartographers and
 * navigators such as Marinus of Tyre, Pithias, Claudius Ptolomy and
 * Eratosthenes knew not only that the earth was round but
 * how to divide it into degrees and how to measure a degree]
 * goes back to before the time of Alexander let alone Alexandria.


 * How can we check that?


 * A Mesopotamian Sos is listed in Wikopedia as 180 m
 * An Egyptian itrw is listed as 21,000 royal cubits = 1 schoinos
 * (Herodotus)= 1/10 degree
 * A Greek Stadion is 185 m, there are 8 to a Milos and 600 to a degree
 * A Roman Stadium is 185 m, there are 8 to a milliare and 600 to a degree
 * In both cases 75 'miles' = 1 degree of 111 km
 * That produces a great circle as they put it
 * of 24,830 modern English miles.
 * The modern value is about 24903.


 * Egil
 * "Anyway, the content of the table is not verifiable,"


 * 1.)All pending votes for deletion dropped pending outcome
 * 2.)No revertion or deletion of my input pending outcome


 * 3.)Any or all mediators to state technical qualifications in
 * A. Sumerian, Akkadian, Elamite language and standards of measure,
 * B. Ancient Egyptian language and standards of measure,
 * C. Greek, Latin and Iron age standards of measure,
 * D. Medieval standards of measure in the East and West
 * E. Archaeology
 * F. Architecture and canons of proportion
 * G. Mensuration
 * H. Standards of Measure in Pre Contact Americas


 * 4.) No mediator to have previously voted for deletion
 * 5.) All mediators to list which of the following books they
 * would revert as a "pseudoscientific source
 * (all having been twice reverted from
 * ancient weights and measures at User Egils request)

Mediation
I can confirm I'm OK with the standard Wikipedia process of mediation. -- Egil 14:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Ken proposes
Basically, here's how mediation works: you submit a request (if both parties agree, something I'm not getting from you thus far), select a mediator that both parties agree on, and the mediator acts as a go between to help resolve the conflict.


 * Rktect 8/9/05
 * I know how mediation works, its part of my job.
 * In point of fact you are acting like a mediator but unfortunately
 * you have to recuse yourself from the process because
 * you are already on record as taking sides

That's the short version. In the short term, I would suggest that you declare a truce.


 * A Truce is fine. That requires a cease fire, and that requires removal of my articles
 * from under the ban. Remove them from the Vfd and we can talk.
 * That's a very reasonable condition


 * Nobody does any further work on the articles in the main namespace
 * and nobody makes any more comments about the dispute
 * in the VfD discussions or on talk pages.


 * The easiest way to get there is to take the tags off, that's up to Egil
 * If he can't bend we can't do business

In the meantime, both parties need to read up on dispute resolution, mediation, and arbitration, and I suggest that you also review as much of the material under policies and guidelines as you can.


 * There is really a lot simpler way to resolve the conflict.
 * If Egil disputes something let him say why and cite his sources.
 * I'll say why I disagree and cite my sources.
 * Since Egil doesn't have the knowledge base to do that he will have to develop one
 * by doing his homework and that will be a benefit to all concerned

I'm willing to continue acting as a go-between until a mediator is selected. I doubt I would be acceptable to you as a mediator on several counts, but if you are both willing, I am too. I will warn you that you will likely not be able to define the grounds for the dispute the way you have attempted to on my talk page, and I will also warn you that you will almost certainly not find a mediator with the scientific background you specify.


 * You can be a go between but not a mediator. A go between gets people to the table
 * A mediator has to be as described above.
 * I'm really amazed that you seem to think you could mediate
 * a dispute when you have already taken a position in favor of one side
 * How does that work ???


 * For the standards of measure in the Jemdet Nasr and the copper age
 * Choose someone off ANE familiar with the units involved. Explain that what we are
 * trying to do is investigate whether the standards refered to in the hymn of Nanse
 * can be documented.


 * Robert Englund
 * Robert Englund, UCLA address: Box 951511, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1511, USA
 * Tel.: (+001 310) 825 8506, Fax: (+001 310) 206 6456, email: englund@ucla.edu


 * Pat Ryan
 * Patrick C. Ryan 9115 West 34th Street - Little Rock, AR 72204-4441  (501)227-9947
 * PROTO-LANGUAGE@email.msn.com
 * John Halloran
 * John A. Halloran P.O. Box 75713 Los Angeles, CA 90075 U.S.A. E-MAIL: jah7@pacbell.net


 * Go through a similar process for the rest of the pages. Possibly look at the references
 * and bibliographies attached to the pages. Maybe you will learn something, maybe not.

I also suggest, since most or all of the VD votes are likely to go against you, that you copy each article you're currently working on into subpages of your user page. To do so for an article that you want to title Standards of measure you could simply go to User:Rktect/Standards of measure and edit that article.


 * What you should do if you really want to see this resolved
 * is take the steps I have described to make sure that doesn't happen
 * cease fires and truces work better after hostilities cease.

Response to the above
I believe the Wikipedia methods of conflict resolution are so well proven that I do not think it is wise to deviate. At this point, I believe it is a question of a simple yes or no to the mediation process. My answer is yes, as mentioned. I will not touch any of the disputed articles while the process goes on. -- Egil 20:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Microfinance
Sorry to waste your work - but I've tracked down the source to this article. If 138.220.42.4 reverts it, best shop it to copyvio. Tearlach 23:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Earle K. Bergey
No problems, I just saw the article could do with a little bit of TLC and tagged it. I have actually watched it now, and may add it to my Cleanup taskforce desk. Rob Church Talk 01:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Passus Copyright Infringement ???

 * Rktect 8/13/05
 * You are aware that Stecchini is dead?
 * and that the site is a tribute to him??
 * If there is anything copywrited there
 * I sure don't know about it...


 * Aside from that its presented
 * as a cited quotation from the work

American Hiroshima
Kenwarren, i am dissappointed with your deletion of dates from the article on American Hiroshima. I see nothing in your edit history or on your talk page that suggests expertise in matters related to nuclear terrorism.

I found the article while researching the topic on the Web. The dates you deleted are easily found in WorldNetDaily articles, one of which is referenced in the Wikipedia article. Of course they are speculative, but the notion of that Queda plans such an attack is also speculative. It appears to me that lazy writers have tried to lump the entire topic under the heading of "Conspiracy theories" instead of analyzing the nature and sources of this particular speculation about a consipiracy.

Deleting the dates makes it more of a stub, detracting from whatever minimal contribution someone previously afforded the topic. A serious analysis, such as I offer to paying clients with qualified editors, would consider the source's claims that Queda got nukes from former Soviet agents, and would assess the veracity of those claims. If speculation about dates can be traced no further than the speculative source, citing the exact nature of the speculation can serve encyclopedic purposes, such as letting readers know that speculation about an attack on those particular days originated with a particular source. After the dates are past, awareness of the precise dates and reasons behind their original publication can help readers decide how much credibility to afford sources such as worldnetdaily in the future. WoLok 21:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

(My reply from WoLok's talk page)

I removed the dates because they are all speculative, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. At the time I removed them, two had already been passed, and a third has passed since then. That leaves three, which I honestly expect to pass without nuclear incidents. I could speculate that Al Qaeda will detonate a nuclear device on my birthday, but in the absence of evidence, it's no more notable or encyclopedic than any other date.

As for "conspiracy theory", I'm not wedded to that term. I used it because it's a label that people will understand, and one that's reasonably close to the truth. Do you have a suggestion for a better one? And do you hav any additional citations that you could share, as I agree that the article as a whole could use a little help.

Ken talk 21:50, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Noboby speculated about anything when they reported that WorldNetDaily had cited the dates you are covering up by deleting them from this article. It is a matter of historical fact that in the summer of 2005, an on-line publication cited those dates as possible times when they believed such an attack might occur. If you were to delete all encyclopedic reporting about people who speculate and the matters about which they speculate, we would begin with all articles about religion, where speculative premises of the religion are reported in an encylopedic manner.

It betrays your lack of interest in sociology that you would insinuate my interest in the dates represents some faith in the theories advanced by groups in which I am interested. there is not "Crystal Ball" needed to report the fact that WorldNetDaily published these dates and that the dates became the basis of widespread speculation in the weeks that followed. Would you also delete dates when apocolyptic groups have suggested an end of the world? If so how are we to know these groups proposed dates that later proved to be eronious, and then how are we to proceed with study about how these groups deal with their own eronious speculation?

You deleted relevant material from an article about which you have no relevant knowledge to contribute. Just because you don't want to know something doesn't mean others don't. I consider your behavior offensive to the advancement of knowledge. Unless you offer a credible reason why we should not study publications such as WorldNetDaily and the speculation they advance, I plan to restore the dates and contribute other substantive information to the article. WoLok 00:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I deleted speculative dates that weren't even mentioned in articles I looked at on WorldNetDaily. Did I look at every article on the site? No. There could be thousands. I did look for other information online, and found a bunch of articles that also didn't specify dates. One article I did find mentioned days, such as May 14, but not years: "No specific year has been suggested...". And the only "authoritative" source for any of this I can find out about is a $120 per year subscription newsletter.

I strongly encourage the addition of substantive material to the article. I also like the idea of reporting on WorldNetDaily and the type of speculation it provides, though I would suggest it belongs in a separate article. Study is original research, and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. As for the dates, I can only repeat Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and that the specific dates in the article under discussion aren't mentioned anywhere I can find.

Ken talk 01:09, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Repeating slogans doesn't make your argument any stronger. They are there. I read them earlier this week. I found 587 hits on Google for "American Hiroshima" "Aug. 6". Nothing more original research in citing those dates than is most of the information posted in this site about the Muppets, the Simpsons or about Brittany Spears. Why? Because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I will include them because you provide ample evidence that readers cannot easily find them looking back through the archived WND articles, which drove a wave of 08/06/05 reports around the Web. Same thing can be expected this time next year, and reliable information about the source of this information is appropriate at an open source encyclopedia. Unless some architect claims it's not.

Pedantically repeating phrases from former Wikipedia contributors' boiler-plate sloganeerism doesn't override readers' interest in knowing the source of fears about American Hirishima and why those fears spiked on Aug. 6. Also-- a clue - "original research" is not defined as "information that Ken Warren doesn't care about and doesn't already know". WoLok 01:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

If you have sources you can cite for the dates, by all means add them back in. I'll note that the only source I can find is Joseph Farah, editor and CEO of World Net Daily and publisher of that newsletter I mentioned earlier. Every web page I've seen is either quoting an article on World Net Daily (which, based on reasonable inference, I can assume was written or directed by him) or an interview with him. Unless he has shared his original sources, I have to doubt his accuracy, as I'm sure many others would. So I would say that if that's the only source, you should specifically attribute any such assertions. BTW, if you're aware of an article on World Net Daily that specifies a date (mm/dd/yyyy) for an American Hiroshima, could you provide me with the link? I honestly don't see any.

I'll also point out that the "slogans" you denigrate are the consensus editorial and social rules by which Wikipedia operates. To quote the first sentence of What Wikipedia is not:

"Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, also an online community."

The rules exist for a reason, and while Wikipedia includes such rules as Be bold and Ignore all rules, some caution is advisable, especially for a novice editor. If you don't like a rule (or a guideline or policy) that's currently in place, you should try to change it in most cases, rather than ignoring it.

Ken talk 02:52, August 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * You lack knowledge about my experience as an editor, or even of my experience in the context of this project. A lecture on the rules-that-are-not rules created by a concensus-that-is-not-a-concensus is probably irrelevant to the content of that article. My notes about the specific references to those dates are at the office, but they are in the WND archive, somewhere in the same 45XXX archive range cited in the Wiki'd article, which I have now updated. I focused on the most widely reported date. You will likely agree that it is improbable someone made those dates up, attributed them to a widely known Internet publication, then I showed up to defend numbers I had not previously seen. The general integrity of the sourcing on the page, as it stands now, is consistent with that throughout this rambling whatisitpedia. If you care to aggressively defend your casual off-hand edit outside your area of knowledge, I will either continue to rebutt you, or deprive readers of the benefit of my considerable knowledge in this area. But since you seem interested only in copyediting and deleting content in this article, I suggest you subjects about which you have some knowledge. WoLok 03:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, if you're truly interested, there are several interviews published with the publisher of WND easily discoverable through Google searches, in which he summarizes essentially the same information contained in his free publication, and in which he repeats his Aug. 6 suspicions: http://discerningtexan.blogspot.com/2005/08/is-unthinkable-upon-us.html (the following blog cites almost verbatim the information first published in WND) http://smoothstone.blogspot.com/2005/08/numbers-calendars-important-to-bin.html . Your fascination with Wikipedia's rules-du-jour is all very interesting, but some of us are interested in the SUBJECTS so-called Wikipedians make a game of toying with, yet surprise surprise, we hold no particular point of view on those subjects beyond genuine interest in understanding the subject.

OOPS -- this one undermines my premise that WND was the original source. I knew better, but for wikipedia's sake, the "Rules" say put in what you have and someone will certianly come along and improve it. I do recall in my reading having noticed reference to an older source, as is claimed in this article: http://www.worldthreats.com/al-qaeda_terrorism/american_hiroshima_ryan.html WoLok 04:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

summary the difference between earlier reports speculating about al qaeda's nuclear capabilities and the current news centered around a feared "american hiroshima" is specifically, dates introduced by WND. That is why the dates, evidence of which is available in links cited above, are relevant to the article and why the article necessarily centers around the WND reports. I suggest that in the future you consider studying a matter before you cry "conspiracy theory", link to a marginally relvant page on that topic, and then delete other writers' informed contributions. WoLok 04:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it. The history of the article speaks for itself: it was created, I did a little cleanup and clarified things so someone wouldn't just speedy delete it. A week later, several dates get added, with no references. I did a little checking, could find nothing about those specific dates (As I've mentioned, at the time they mentioned years, and I could find no sources for particular years for any of the dates that were mentioned), so I removed them as speculation. They didn't improve the article in any way at that time. We had some heated discussion, which boiled down to me asking you (or someone) to include proper attribution for speculations, and you offering insults.

You've now added the dates back in, attributed them to their source, and made various other improvements to the article. It's not only much better than it was, it's certainly much better and more encyclopedic than all the gamecruft, forumcruft, bandcruft, etc. that Wikipedia is packed with. Congratulations!

So what's with the ad hominem arguments and accusations of argumentum ad ignorantiam? When I removed those dates, I gave a reason based in Wikipedia policy. You may not like the policy, but this is Wikipedia. You can either work within the policy, work to change the policy, or go elsewhere (which is paraphrased from another policy which I don't feel like looking up).

Ken talk 04:27, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

frankly, ken, I'm concerned primarily about the content of the article because it is available through search engines and will in a few months be a primary link returned on related searches. I have little interest in the esoteric cult that has arisen around the notion of community editing and the self-satisfied opinions of disparate individuals who consider their typing to comprise "Community". I returned the single most relevant date to the article, after first contacting you to find out if you had any relevant knowledge that you had not contributed. if it is wikipedia policy that writers are to coddle the egos of other writers, I assert there is no concensus around such a policy. I addressed you in the same curt manner with which professional editors frequently confront writers they pay. If you agree the article is better constructed, and better sourced, then we have gained ground. WoLok 04:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm also more concerned about content, and not always thrilled with the way Wikipedia actually works. There actually are policies about "coddling the egos of other writers", BTW, such as please do not bite the newcomers, and others that address politeness, dispute resolution, and other interactions between editors. Wikipedia wants to be a kinder, gentler encyclopedia (or it's creators want it to be, which is much the same thing in the end). It wants to be welcoming, open, inclusive, etc. All of which leads to a huge amount of garbage. This garbage takes the form of non-encyclopedic material like games, characters from TV shows, and the like, and in addition, there's material that's just plain wrong, either embedded within articles that are otherwise encyclopedic, or comprising entire articles of fallacious material.

As for how you addressed me, I don't find that ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies are particularly good tools in a dispute, and I try not to use them. They're too abrasive, leaving the participants in less of a mood to find a resolution. As for professional editors, well, I'm certainly not one, and never claimed to be. I'm also not paid to be a writer, which is probably just as well, because when someone is gratuitously insulting, I (like most people) am tempted to fire right back at them. Eventually, I can be provoked enough to "lose my cool" (try harder next time, BTW :-). Ken talk 05:18, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

(Following copied from WoLok's talk page)"Wikipedia policy does not dictate whether I can be dissappointed with another editor's decision. An editor who cites Wikipedia policy does not thereby construct a shield against other writers expressing their dissappointment with an editorial decision, then explaining the reasons for such dissappointment, as I did before editing the article in question. WoLok 04:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)"

Regarding your comment on your talk page (copied above), I agree. I didn't take umbrage at your first comment here. I did (a bit) at later comments, but made allowances for your relative newness to Wikipedia. In the end you used your knowledge of the subject to make the article better, something which I couldn't do, not having the same knowledge base to work from. That's the goal here, after all: making a better encyclopedia.

Ken talk 05:18, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

The truce and the cubit
I have not touched any of the articles in question, not their discussion pages. But I do have voted on a VfD that someone else begun, which I think is something else. -- Egil 07:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm intentionally taking a couple of days off, barring the possibility that Rktect will choose to participate in a conversation with me. I just don't have time to spend hours every day reviewing Rktect's contributions to a couple of dozen articles, deciding they're too confused and ill-formatted to save and rework, and reverting them.
 * While I'm doing that, I'm following up with two sources. One is the person who published the web site http://www.metrum.org from a collection of unpublished works by one Livio Catullo Stecchini. I hope to learn from him the copyright status of that material, which Rktect quoted extensively. The other is the Office of Weights and Measures at the NIST, to hopefully get an overview of scientific thought on historical metrology (as opposed to the science of metrology) and the status of Livio Stecchini's (and others') thoughts and words on the topic.


 * Ken talk 11:03, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * FYI User:Rktect has now opted out of the mediation, and said that he would take the matter to RfC or RfArb. -- Egil 05:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

On mediation
I wouldn't worry about past things, which I actually don't think are important compared to current and future things between the participants. Just let things progress as needed, and things will go from there. I don't think it's improper to submit things to VfD if they merit, in your judgement, deletion. That's the only metric that should be in your mind. --Improv 22:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel Mouton
In your edits of the above article, you specifically left the values 1 virga = 0.001 minutes of arc = 1.85 m etc intact, even though the article originally specified that the virga of Mouton was ~2.04 m. Is there a special reason for this? You also left intact the statement What's interesting about this is that Mouton was proposing that there be a relation between time and space.. Is there a special reason for this? Is this sentence in your opinion meaningfull and relevant? -- Egil 17:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I simply did a little cleanup, in particular removing the references to Greek and Roman units of measure, for which I can find no evidence of use at that time. If you have a good reference for the 2.04 meter value, by all means change it. As for Abbé Mouton proposing a relation between time and space, that happens to be exactly what he did, IMO. His method of establishing the relationship was shaky, in that there are many variables not taken into account that affect the swing of a pendulum, but by saying that a particular unit was exactly the length required for a pendulum to swing with a particular frequency, he effectively did establish that relationship. If you can think of a better way to phrase it, though, please do so.
 * And please, don't abandon the article. It's not hopeless at all... Ken talk 18:18, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason is its the correct data. Klein "World of Measurement" chapter 9 pp 108-109. Citing a reference helps others know where your ideas are coming from. Rktect 19:02, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Klein chapters 4 and 5 should provide you adequate information regarding Greek and Roman measures and their Medieval descendents in Europe. Rktect 19:02, August 28, 2005 (UTC) If you need more specific information as to which medieval and renaissance scholars studied which classical measures and when, a good reference would be any book on Thomas Jefferson, Jeffersonian Classical or Greek Revival Architecture, or [Vitruvius Pollio on Doric, Ionic and Corinthian Orders] or [A Sampling of Drawings from Andrea Palladio's The Four Books of Architecture 1738 Edition originally published by Isaac Ware]Rktect 19:02, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have edited it so it makes some sense and removed my objections but don't know if I can remove the tags. Rktect 19:02, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * First, no you shouldn't remove the VfD tags. The decision will certainly be Keep, so the article won't be going away. But once an article has been tagged, it's up to the closing admin to remove the tags.
 * Second, you've been told this before, but I'll tell you again. Don't intercalate your comments into someone else's on talk pages, and pay attention to indents. I understand why you do it, but it makes following the conversation almost impossible. See Talk page and Talk page guidelines for the usual ettiquette. I have fixed this conversation this time, but I'm getting tired of it. This is part of the problem people have with you, BTW. By continuing with an idiosyncratic style on talk pages, it's as if you're intentionally making it difficult to understand you.
 * Third, I challenged the relevance of some material you added to Gabriel Mouton and removed it.

Without addressing the relevance you added that material back in, along with a bunch more material that looks irrelevant. I'm not questioning the conversions from one system to another, I'm questioning why anyone looking for information on Mouton would care how many pes make up a milliare.

The references you provide above are very nice (particularly Palladio), but they also don't address the relevance. So, here's a simple request: Please provide one or more specific cites that indicate that Mouton was working with the Greek or Roman measuring systems, not the ones that were in common use in France and Italy at the time. If a particular piece of information isn't relevant to Mouton, it just shouldn't be in an article about him.


 * Ken talk 02:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * your Responses 1 and 2 are constructive criticism so no response from me is required other than to attempt to comply with your wishes.


 * Response 3A might have worked better if you asked why, waited for response then decided what to do.


 * I don't think you should judge what is irrelevant without asking first. (Myle for example).


 * Response 3B Mouton doesn't base his system on the milliare or make it 10 stadiums such that the Roman Milliare is 8 by some sort of coincidence. Its important for people not to confuse Greek and Roman stadia. Both are 185 m but the Greek stadion has 600 pous and the Roman stadium has 625 pes.


 * That's a very dumbed down answer because there are several Greek pous, remen, cubits and even nibw or ellen that become the basis of some famous geographers stadia. I have gone into detail regarding stadia on other pages so I won't repeat myself here. A lot of this is kind of basic for anyone familiar with the subject matter and arcane and confusing for anyone who isn't so excuse me if I do a data dump with the references.


 * 3C his units are increments of Greek and Roman measuring systems as I indicated. Please put back whatever you removed Rktect 04:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Reference 1
 * [Roman and Egyptian foot]


 * Here we have Stecchini chastising (Reference 4)Petries pyramidite ideology of the pendulum because he knows that the Egyptian foot is not based on the pendulum its related to body measures and agricultural units. In this article he talks about Gallileo and Riccoli (Reference 2) influencing Mouton with their value for the Roman foot or pes (Reference 3).


 * Though I find the worst thing about Stecchini to be his run on sentences, I'm probably just as bad.
 * "A special aspect of the pyramidite ideology is the problem of the pendulum. After Burattini was robbed of the not he had taken in Egypt, he suggested that his metro cattolico should be based on the length of the pendulum that beats the second.


 * This idea of Burattini was implemented by Jonas Moor, one of the original members of the Royal Society, who calculated that the metrum catholicum equal to 1/3 of the length of the pendulum that beats the second at the latitude of London, to be 4/3 of palmo of Genova (1089 /1000 of English foot or 331.9268 mm., reckoning by the English foot of 1824;that is essentially a trimmed barley foot.


 * The pendulum that beats the second at the latitude of London reduced to sea level has a length of 995.1806 mm.


 * For a period the standard of Moore was considered the solution to the problem of the fixed standard of length; but soon it was found out that this method of establishing a standard, first suggested by Gabriel Mouton, on the basis of Riccioli’s calculations, while perfect in theory, was most difficult to apply in practice, since the length of the pendulum not only varies according to latitude, but is substantially affected by the elevation above sea level, the presence of dense landmasses, and the difference between physical and mathematical pendulum. For this reason, the standard of the new Toise du Châtelet imposed itself as the scientific standard of Europe.


 * However, when the Royal Society was established in 1662, one of the first tasks it sets to itself was that of determining the length of the pendulum that beats the second; to this purpose John Evelyn, one of the founders, in his trip to Italy, not only took the usual measurernents of standards of the Roman foot, but also of the braccio of Florence and of the braccio of Bologna, used respectively by Galileo and Riccioli in the calculation of the pendulum. But under the influence of the Academie des Sciences and the Academie des Inscriptions, established in the same decade as the Royal Society, the matter of fixed standard was settled in France by reforming the pied de roi, so as to make it 12/11 of Roman foot.Rktect 04:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Reference 2
 * [Galileo and Riccoli]
 * "Riccioli conducted free fall experiments in which he dropped balls of different weights from different heights. Riccioli found that the heavier ball actually does land a bit sooner, but that the time to fall is not directly proportional to weight. His results confirmed Galileo's claim that weight is only a secondary factor, but showed that weight had more of an effect than Galileo believed it would. Riccioli also provided evidence for the 1, 3, 5, ¼ progression; his values were 15 Roman feet in the first second, 60 feet in the second, 135 in the third, and 240 in the fourth."

Reference 3 brought by the colonists from England. '''These measures had their origins in a variety of cultures –Babylonian, Egyptian, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norman French'''. The ancient "digit," "palm," "span" and "cubic" units of length slowly lost preference to the length units "inch," "foot," and "yard." and the words from which we derive many of our present measurement unit names. For example, the 12 divisions of the Roman "pes," or foot were called unciae. Our words "inch" and "ounce" are both derived from that Latin word." ago. Gabriel Mouton''', Vicar of St. Paul's Church in Lyons and an astronomer, proposed in 1670 a comprehensive decimal measurement system based on the length of one minute of arc of a great circle of the Earth. Mouton also proposed the swing length of a pendulum with a frequency of one beat per second as the unit of length. A pendulum with this beat would have been fairly easily reproducible, thus facilitating the widespread distribution of uniform standards. Other proposals were made, but more than a century elapsed before any action was taken."
 * [NASA on the history of measures]
 * "The measurement system commonly used in the United States today is nearly the same as that
 * '''"Roman contributions include the use of 12 as a base number (the foot is divided into 12 inches)
 * "Tradition holds that King Henry I decreed that a yard should be the distance from the tip of his nose to the end of his outstretched thumb. The length of a furlong (or furrow-long) was established by early Tudor rulers as 220 yards. This led Queen Elizabeth I to declare in the 16th century, that henceforth the traditional Roman mile of 5000 feet would be replaced by one of 5280 feet, making the mile exactly eight furlongs and providing a convenient relationship between the furlong and the mile."
 * "The need for a single worldwide coordinated measurement system was recognized over 300 years

Reference 4
 * [Petrie and the Pendulum]

If we take the natural standard of one day divided by 105, the pendulum would be 29.157 inches at lat 30 degrees. Now this is exactly the basis of Egyptian land measures, most precisely known through the diagonal of that squared, being the Egyptian double cubit. The value for this cubit is 20.617 inches, while the best examples in stone are 20.620±0.005inches. On this basis, Petrie suggests that the Egyptians were responsible for inventing both the time pendulum and metric divisions of the day."
 * "the archaeologist Flinders Petrie, who wrote to Nature that very same year:

Request for arbitration, rktect
For your information, I have now submitted a request for arbitration: User:rktect -- Egil 11:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I have a question in this matter. As an interested party, I would like to make a statement in this case. At what time is this appropriate, and is there an expected format? Ken talk 01:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * If you wish to be a party in the case add to the request for arbitration. Otherwise wait until the case is accepted and put evidence on the evidence page and comments on the workshop page. Fred Bauder 01:33, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration
Sorry, I don't really know. I'm a mediator, not an arbitrator - I try to stay as far away from Arbitration as I can. Andre ( talk ) 06:07, August 30, 2005 (UTC)