User talk:Rasmus Faber

I just read over it all again... Gamecast is distributed by a company called Spectre they own http://www.halolive.com.au , http://www.gamersworld.com.au and http://www.spectreworld.com.au which is like the amazon in australia they are the ones hosting Gamecast and it is being distributed from them.. does that mean I comply with number #3?

Hi I was wonder in g if you would like to help my wikicity http://pets.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page[1]. For pet lovers

HAC references Meet in the Middle attack to Diffie and Hellman, chapter 7 page 272 "Exhaustive cryptanalysis of the NBS Data Encryption Standard", Computer, 10 (1977), 74­84

IEEE Computer is not online for 1977 so a trip to the library will be needed, or you could email him at sun ;)

Meet in the Middle is also acredited to Diffie and Hellma in A Known-Plaintext Attack on Two-Key Triple Encryption, Paul C. van Oorschot and Michael J. Wiener. Thats avaliable online under the filename Euro90.pdf its was published in 1991 but I can't remember where.

The attack by Merkle-Hellman is for two-key triple DES, not double DES. acid2000 12:22, 11 November 2005 (GMT)

Very quick reversion of vandalism. Good eye; fast fingers. Well done. KHM03 11:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Denmark page as living in or being associated with Denmark. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Danish Wikipedians for instructions.--Rmky87 20:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rasmus,

just so you know, the apostrophe in possessives formed from nouns (e.g. Gödel's) is mandatory in English. Confusingly, the possessive pronoun "its" does not take the apostrophe. --Trovatore 05:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I applaud your work on The talk page. I've given up, but I'm still watching. Melchoir 22:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you may do the merging suggested. There are other topics that may be be covered, e.g. travelling from the US to Canada/Mexico to buy cheap medicals, traveling between European countries due to regulations and limits there and here.

The article exists for a year and for the whole time it served only as battleground for several spammers. I myself do not have enough of knowledge to deal with this topic. Pavel Vozenilek 23:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Rasmus

Tusind tak for hjælpen med Placebo artiklen. Jeg havde virkelig forsøgt at "neutralisere" mine kommentarer. HVIS deres konlusioner er korrekt, er Hróbjartsson & Götzsche's metaanalyse banebrydende, og kaster lys over et emne der har været fyldt med myter, der blev antaget som bevist sandhed, men det var de ikke.

Jeg tror at noget af broden kan fjernes ved at vælge andre ord end "Does the placebo effect exist?". Det eksisterer, men deres analyse viser at effekten er primært en subjektive oplevelse, og ikke forårsager objektive fysiologiske forandringer af en karakter der kan udrette meget for alvorlige sygdom.

Another subtitle could be "Objective or subjective effects?"

I will take another look at it and see if anything that isn't NPOV has gone unnoticed, but as it was, it was "neutralized", just stating what their metaanalysis had shown. Basically it would only be quacks who would object to this new way of looking at things. The placebo effect would still be an important research tool, but quacks would be exposed for misusing it. -- Fyslee 00:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC) (Amerikaner i Sorø)[reply]

I have now made some changes that should improve the quality of that section. -- Fyslee 00:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for keeping your head on the AfD for Israel news agency, and explaining your stance in a polite fashion :)

Adrian Lamo 08:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your edit - thanks! What's your favorite beer?  ;> Israelbeach 17:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rasmus -- Saw you said you lost stuff to a discussion because of cross-posting. When you get the message that someone else has modified the same text as you, in a discussion you can simply go down to the bottom of your page (the second edit textbox), find where you added your edit, copy that text, and then paste it back up into the top textbox where it should go. That way both your comments and the comments someone else wrote gets displayed -- no rewrites needed. Hopefully that made sense.;) --Utopianheaven 09:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you posted on the Muhammad Drawings talk page that you had lost some text due to an edit conflict. Usually when you have an edit conflict, you can simply click "back" and copy your text. Then just paste it into the new version of the article. Hope that helps in the future ;) Jacoplane 10:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term just appears to be very poorly defined. Some of the various uses are summed up in a book i found through google book search [1], which indicates that the terms dutch auction, english auction and american auction are used interchangeably in different scenarios. According to google, the most common use is the first-price sealed-bid auction. I am ok with either changing the redirect ro making it a disambiguation page. However, I don't think that the use of the american auction to refer to a dollar auction is valid or commodity- It was probably an error made by the forum users. --DDG 21:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

this is the second time you have removed the picture. I'm not sure what you're thinking. The article is about these cartoons. People want to see them. The picture in the article is too small, so people cannot make up their minds just by looking at that. So I've added the inline link. Please stop removing it. Aucaman^Talk 10:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to make the readers' job easier. Most people who click on the article want to see the pictures right away, so listing them in the reference section is not enough. Aucaman^Talk 10:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rasmus,

thanks for correcting my silly mistake. Don't know how I deleted half of the article... :-) --Adornix 12:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot read (or you cannot understand) do not remove links that give references to new way of executing surface subdivision. You have dutifully removed such links, have you taken the trouble to read the paper in cause? Fine , I can give you a link to a free page. What next, you'll complain that it is in pdf, I bet.

Hi RF; From your contributions page and the above comment, it would seem to me that you might be interested in the requests for mediation page at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#External link regarding the age of the Earth. Or perhaps you are not interested, if so, I apologize for wasting your time. Regards, Rickert 04:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I happen to think it's a rather nifty proof myself, especially since it attacks one of their biggest arguments head-on. I'm sure there's a proof somewhere about uniqueness of limits, although I wouldn't know where to start on it. In other news, I'm not too happy that the entire talk page was archived while those last few sections were still active, so I might check the policy on that - especially since I want to see what the reaction to my proof is from the other side of the fence. Confusing Manifestation 11:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rasmus, as you believe that it is critically important to mention how many times a journalist was married in his Wiki bio (i.e. - Joel Leyden) then I am now asking you how many times have you been married? Is Christina your first, second or third wife? If divorced, what were the reasons? Thanks for your cooperation in being as open to the public as those you wish to edit on Wiki. Bonnieisrael 18:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rasmus, how's the cartoon business in Denmark? Re: your accusation in my Bio that I was divorced twice, that is incorrect. You also mention that I live in Ra'anana, Israel. Please cite your verifiable and accurate sources according to Wikipedia's guidelines or be banned for libel. In addition, there is no relationship between being involved in children's rights and revealing a person's private "family" details. In fact, according to Israeli and International law, all matters regarding one's family details and court precedings thereof are forbidden to enter the public domain. This law protects our children. I strongly suggest that you stick to software development and not "editing" copy. Your lack of professionalism, carelessness and negative approach which now enters the realm of vandalism in editing articles in Wikipedia is now transparent for all to see. Thank you. Israelbeach 21:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The below has been copied from the Leyden Bio Talk Page. User:85.64.5.224 is no longer anonymous and a police complaint pertaining to criminal harassment has been filed with the local authorities. The information is inaccurate but yet you continue to talk of my "former wifes" without citing reliable and accurate sources as per Wikipedia's guidelines? That is libel. I do not know what your problem is. Perhaps you hate Jews, perhaps you hate Israelis. In researching you on the Internet I did discover that you write Arabic very well! What is transparent is that you are obsessed in harassing and vandalizing this article by attempting to delete it (vote was taken to Keep) and uploading baseless facts, that you have much time on your hands ( are you unemployed?) for such negative purposes, that rather than focusing on Denmark's destructive cartoons which have created riots around the world, Iran's building of nuclear weapons or talking about genocide in the Sudan, you wish to discuss who kissed who? Should I now ask you if your wife Christina is frigid? Does that get you off? You may have noticed that I have now deleted mention of my children in this bio. Children should not be hurt by destructive gossip for which you are attemting to spread. Lastly, you state: "Wikipedia works under Florida law, so Israeli law is irrelevant." Again you are so wrong. International law applies to both the US and Israel. Rasmus - give it a rest. Find another sandbox to play in. Or sit outside the Israeli embassy and protest Israel's existence. Do whatever your Danish heart desires, but don't continue to hurt children through baseless rumors. (I am willing to bet that you do not have children nor know, appreciate or respect a parent's responsibility). Cite your sources or be banned from Wikipedia. Israelbeach 09:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick fix Rasmus, you sir are a lifesaver! Basique 21:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

....for depriving hundreds of people from free information. You obviously have no clue of physics and by removing the extended information you have done quite a damage to wiki.

Rasmus, you claim to have an MsC in physics.

Prove any of my papers wrong.

I challenge you in front of the wiki community. Take the one on the Transverse Doppler Effect and its Measurement through the Ives-Stilwell experiment.

Ati3414 14:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you asked "What is Rankine's full name?". I've been looking around for awhile and eventually found that it is "Alexander Oliver Rankine". Ironically, typing that into google brings me back to JSTOR. I'm not sure if the link will work, but here is a biography [2].

Also, Trouton died in 1922 and Rankine died in 1956. I can only see the first page of that biography from JSTOR, so I don't know the day Rankine died, but if it is before Mar 17, then, in an incredible ironic jesture ... the publication just now became public domain (inaccessibility was one of Ati3414's "reasons" for self promotion spam).

One of us (or Ati3414) could upload the article elsewhere and provide a free source to it. Maybe this would be a nice compromise for Ati3414. What do you think? Gregory9 22:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... rereading Copyright law of the United Kingdom I'm not so sure anymore. It appears that it may be 50 years from the "death" of the publisher? But even then I'm not sure as usually in accademic publications the authors still retain rights. If it looks like its worth pursuing, maybe I'll email the publisher and ask them directly. Gregory9 22:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was still under copyright in 1995, it must fall under the copyright extension in 1996. The new copyright duration is then death + 70 years. This means that we will have to wait another 20 years, I am afraid. Thanks a lot for figuring out Rankine's full name. Now we might have to write an article for him :) Rasmus (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! I didn't notice that section. Oh well, there goes that idea. Gregory9 13:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm not a crackpot :) But I'm not a mathematician either, and I saw your award regarding this on your user page and was hoping you could explain some math to me. Please excuse me if this is not even a valid question.

Given the set of points that are contained in a line segment, is the set of "pairs of points zero distance apart" empty?

Thanks. Gregory9 22:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question is valid enough, but it has some implicit assumptions that should be made explicit. I assume you mean points in (a subset/interval of) the reals. We should probably also say explicitly that a pair is two different numbers/points and that the distance is the usual euclidian distance. Then we can rephrase the question to whether there exists any numbers ${\displaystyle x,y\in R}$, ${\displaystyle x\neq y}$ so that ${\displaystyle |x-y|=0}$. The answer to that is no, and the proof might be trivial or not depending on which set of axioms you start out with. You can read the archives of Talk:Proof that 0.999... equals 1 for a few ideas. Of course we might consider a line segment in fx. the hyperreal numbers, and the answer might be different. But if the distance-measure is metric, points with zero distance are per definiton identical. Rasmus (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of the hyperreals before. I started reading the wiki page and it looks quite interesting. Thanks for pointing that out.

I'm still a bit confused with your explanation for the reals though. For example if I took the set of reals between 0 and 1, wouldn't the smallest element be arbitrarily close to 0? So is it still okay to say that the smallest element > 0? Since we didn't include zero, I guess the answer is yes by definition. However if it is > 0, then I can easily define an even smaller element (element/2). So it appears there is no smallest element. Which seems to imply the set is empty. Somehow I was thinking there might be some way that "neighborring elements" had "zero distance" between them, so there is indeed a smallest element != 0, but "zero distance" away from 0. Which is of course contradictory as well, but would also make the set of pairs of differing points that are "zero distance" apart (ie neighboring points) a non null set. Obviously I'm just making up nonsense at this juncture. Can you help me be a bit more rigorous here and understand the common flaw in my thinking here? Thanks Gregory9 13:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure that I understand what you mean in your first example. You don't say whether the set is open or closed, but I assume you mean the set of reals strictly between 0 and 1 (ie. ${\displaystyle x\in R,0<x<1}$). That set doesn't have a smallest element, as you correctly conclude, but it certainly isn't empty - 0.5 is a member for instance.

I have met the concept of "neighboring elements" before. The fact is, there is no such thing in the reals. Consider this: If x and y, ${\displaystyle x\neq y}$, are neighbors. What then is the relationship between x and ${\displaystyle {\frac {x+y}{2}}}$?

If I follow your reasoning correctly, you are imagining moving an infinitesimal small distance away from your point, so that you are now at a different point, but the distance moved is still 0. The problem with that reasoning is that per the Archimedean property of the reals, there is no such thing as an infinitesimal small distance. The distance is either 0 or a finite number.

I hope that helps a bit. In these matters intuition is sometimes more of a hindrance than a help :-) Rasmus (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... you're right about the comment "intuition is sometimes more of a hindrance" here. So some infinite sets of reals have a least number, some don't. I really have trouble conceptually understanding what allows that. It appears to me that the problem is more in representation. For instance if we consider all ${\displaystyle x\in R,1<x<2}$ we can't "write out" the least number, but for ${\displaystyle 1\leq x<2}$ we can ... I have trouble seeing what makes the elements in those two sets different besides that fact.

Also, does any of this change if we consider the rationals since those are countable? If I can order them, why can't I ask what the least number is? We still run into the same problem. It's almost as if the set is countable until you order it. Is this really correct?

Oh, and after you pointed out the hyperreals to me, I saw the page on the surreal numbers. If we consider the set of surreal numbers in an interval, then is there always a least number and always a largest number? The surreals almost seem more like the average person's conception of numbers than the reals. And while I'm afraid to ask, if we consider the decimal representation to be representing surreals, then is 0.9999... not equal to 1? Gregory9 17:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may butt in, unfortunately with any infinite set it is possible for it to not have a "least element". However, it is possible to have an infimum, which may or may not be in the set - and of course there are cases where even that is undefined, depending on the underlying structure. For example, the sets ${\displaystyle \left\{x:1\leq x<2\right\}}$ and ${\displaystyle \left\{x:1<x<2\right\}}$, taken as subsets of the real numbers, both have infimum of 1. The set ${\displaystyle \left\{1,1.4,1.41,1.414,...\right\}}$, taken as a subset of the reals, has infimum ${\displaystyle {\sqrt {2}}}$, but taken as a subset of the rationals has no infimum. Note that this set is even countably infinite. If the idea of a set not necessarily having a smallest element is troubling, try this geometrical comparison - where are the endpoints of a closed curve, such as a circle? Probably the same place the smallest element of the real numbers is ;) Confusing Manifestation 03:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. If you have time, can you answer some of my other questions in the last post? Also, I don't see how your geometrical comparison is equivalent. With the set of numbers in a particular interval there is a defined order as you can always state if any one element is greater or less than any other specified element. You can't do this with points on a circle. Gregory9 09:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, just to make this completely clear, let us reiterate the proof that the set ${\displaystyle {x\in R:0<x<1}=(0,1)}$ has no least element. We do it by contradiction: assume there is a least member ${\displaystyle x\in (0,1)}$. But if ${\displaystyle x\in (0,1)}$ then also ${\displaystyle x/2\in (0,1)}$, since ${\displaystyle x/2\in R}$ and ${\displaystyle 0<x/2<1}$. But since ${\displaystyle x/2<x}$, we have a contradiction. Conclusion: there is no least member. That was of course trivial, but it sometimes helps to see a proof including all (or at least most) of the details.

Another way to visualize the concept of sets with no least element, may be to first think of the natural numbers. It should be clear that the natural numbers, N, has no largest member. Now consider the set ${\displaystyle {1/n:n\in N}={1/1,1/2,1/3,...}}$. This set cannot contain a smallest number, since if it did, it would contradict the fact that N has no largest number.

The difference between the sets (0,1) and [0,1] is exactly that the second set contains the infimum and supremum of the first set. You may want to read open set, closed set and closure (mathematics), which explains how this can be generalized.

As User:ConMan explained, the existence of subsets that are not closed (which is what this boils down to), is not limited to uncountable sets. In fact it is a property of the topology of the set. If all subsets are closed we call the set (with the associated topology) a discrete space.

You might be thinking of countability in the wrong way. The integers are countable, but they don't have a least element. Countability does not imply that you can count them in order - just that there is some place to start and a method to count, so that you at some point reach every member of the set.

I am not very familiar with the surreal numbers. But since the article states that you can embed the real numbers in them, the embedding of the set (0,1) is also a set in the surreal numbers, and this set can't contain a least number either. However, it is probably not an interval in the surreals. My guess would be that the equivalent interval ${\displaystyle {x\in S:0_{S}<x<1_{S}}}$ does not have a least element, either, but I am not sure how to prove it (if the reals are dense in the surreals, it should be easy to show it).

As for the final question, if we define ${\displaystyle 0.999..._{S}=\sum _{i=1}^{\infty }{\frac {9_{S}}{10_{S}^{i}}}=\lim _{n->\infty }\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\frac {9_{S}}{10_{S}^{i}}}}$\infty }\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\frac {9_{S}}{10_{S}^{i}}}}"/>, then since 0.999... = 1 in the reals, then also ${\displaystyle 0.999..._{S}=1_{S}}$ in the surreals (by the transfer principle). We might however (for some strange reason) choose to define ${\displaystyle 0.999..._{S}=1-\epsilon }$, where ${\displaystyle \epsilon }$ is an infinitesimal. Then of course ${\displaystyle 0.999...\neq 1}$. Rasmus (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the surreals contain infinitesimals, intervals can contain a smallest element since there now is an element which ${\displaystyle x=x/2,x\neq 0}$. Because it also includes infinite numbers, it seems obvious to me that all intervals in the surreals do indeed have a least element and a largest element (regardless of open vs closed intervals). In many cases, the surreals fit better with the lay person's usage / expectations of numbers. So I wonder if it is better to consider the decimal representation as representing surreals instead of just reals. In most cases it wouldn't make a difference, but for things like ${\displaystyle 0.999...=1-\epsilon }$ and thus ${\displaystyle 0.999...\neq 1}$ it would.

Note that I am in no way saying that any of the ${\displaystyle 0.999...=1}$ proofs are wrong. I am merely stating that this is only true if you disallow infinitesimal numbers, which since the average person would consider that a set of numbers should have a least number that the lay person implicitly uses a set of numbers "larger" than the reals. The question of what numbers are being represented by decimal notion is therefore non-trival (since it is rarely explicitly stated). The disagreements over what 0.999... represent are therefore not even being discussed on the same level since the openning statement (${\displaystyle x\in R}$) is already differring from the laypersons definition of what the decimals are representing. In this sense (and only in this sense) I feel they have a valid point. Gregory9 21:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it is not true that for an infinitesimal ${\displaystyle \epsilon }$, ${\displaystyle \epsilon =\epsilon /2}$. By the field-structure (the surreals are actually not a field (mathematics, since it is a class not a set), if ${\displaystyle x=x/2\Rightarrow 2x=x\Rightarrow x=0}$. This also means that defining ${\displaystyle 0.999...=1-\epsilon }$ would be very arbitrary. Why not define it as ${\displaystyle 0.999...=1-\epsilon /2}$?

As for the lay-person's/non-mathematician's view of numbers, I would actually think that the rational numbers, or perhaps even (after the introduction of calculators) the set of all finite decimal numbers, would be the closest match for the average person. At least it very much is opposite to my intuition to have infinitesimals. I like being able to approximate numbers with rational numbers. Say I have two numbers x and y. I know they are close but different. If they are reals, I can find the difference by approximating the values. If they are different, at some point, I will be able to see the difference. For example, x<1.2345678 and y>1.2345679. If these were surreals, they might be different, yet I could continue forever, but never see any difference. That goes against my intuition about the nature of "real" numbers. Rasmus (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I thought that for an infinitesimal number, x=x/2. And that for an infinite number, x=x+1. (Basically, I somehow thought that they obeyed different rules for arithmetic.) Apparently I've got the concepts all mixed up. Anyway, thanks for the conversation. This was fun (and hopefully I learned a little). Gregory9 11:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rasmus, please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Your daily, unsuccessful attempts to delete Joel Leyden's article illustrates an obcession with personal attacks. Please stop. Thanks, IsraelBeach 00:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to point out where I have made a personal attack. If you want to continue editing the article about yourself, you will need to differentiate between discussions about you as the subject of an article and as an editor of articles. The WP:NPOV-policy does not prevent us from discussing subjects of articles. As for deleting Joel Leyden, I wonder where you get the idea that I have been trying to delete it? (I note that you make a similar claim here). Since the original AfD my only edits to the article have been to defend the inclusion of your marital status ([3]) and to revert vandalism ([4] and [5]). Rasmus (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rasmus, would you please be kind enough to email me your email address to israelmarketing @ gmail.com. I wish to continue this conversation in private. And if we both owe an apology to one another we can do so in public  ;> Best wishes and TIA, Joel IsraelBeach 11:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can send e-mail to me by pressing the "E-mail this user"-link in the toolbox on the left. If you make accusations or personal attacks, I reserve the right to publish any correspondence here. Rasmus (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you changed my {{totallydisputed}} tag on that page to {{cleanup}}. I am considering changing it back, but perhaps my words on the talk page were not strong enough.

Very simply, the article is patent nonsense, reeks of advertising, and so full of inane, empty buzzwords as to make it impossible to rewrite from the current version. I don't really think it's possible to clean up the current version into something presentable. It also counts as original research in my view. I doubt that there is anything here that isn't already covered by database marketing; the only difference is that this version has been inflated with a blizzard of empty words, seeking to invest that tawdry subject with false grandeur. The cleanup tag is wrong if the real question is whether there should be an article on this bogus subject at all. Smerdis of Tlön 14:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to bring to your attention that I have filed a request for comment on User:Israelbeach's conduct. --Woggly 11:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Denmark was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help…

Posted by (^'-')^ Covington 07:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC), on behalf of the the AID Maintenance Team[reply]

I would like to bring to your attention that a request for comment on User:Woggly's conduct has been filed. Bonnieisrael 17:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Rasmus, Spammeren er igang igen. (Lykke til med faderskabet! Håber alt går godt.) -- Fyslee 14:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Fyslee labelling me with spam tag ? Please offer advice. Labelling people trying to contribute to the body of information must be detrimental.

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this means felicitations are due on your new baby? :-) --woggly 08:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! We had a beautiful baby boy!

I am sorry to see that you had so many problems with Israelbeach. I had a few encounters with him myself, but I actually thought he had reformed somewhat. But at least the community was quick to back you up. Rasmus (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's gorgeous! I'm so jealous. Then again, I like sleeping, and wearing clothes that are not decorated with spit up.

The Israelbeach story, unfortunately, now goes beyond wikipedia. But "don't feed the trolls" seems to be a good policy for life as well. --woggly 06:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(It has been redrawn as a vector image - nothing links to it anymore.)

I added a new kim lyons page. Maybe you can expand it.Mrsmart 01:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know a featured article you worked on, 0.999..., was featured today on the Main Page. Tobacman 00:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rasmus,

You contributed some critical links which stopped some falsehoods that were being told on the Bjorn Lomborg page. Those links, such as this one [6], are now inaccessible, requiring a password. I wish very much that I had thought to make copies of the articles before, but I did not. Do you know of any way to access these sources again? The point of the article was that it affirmed that the DCSD's findings had been rendered moot by the MSTI. Thank you. Unschool 06:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I am still here. Just not very active. The problem seems to be that Agency for Science (www.forsk.dk) has changed its name and become the Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation (www.fist.dk). In doing so they dropped their old website, including the old documents. I have written a letter to them, asking them to help me dig up the old documents. Best regards, Rasmus (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I think that those arguments would still be raging had you not brought those documents to the table, and I can imagine, once someone finds that they are no longer live links, questioning the result of the previous discussion. I shall continue to look here for your success in this matter. Thanks, Unschool 07:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They finally replied, and kindly sent me both the Danish and the English version of the press-release. I have copied the text here. If you want the original Word-files that I received, just send me an e-mail address. Rasmus (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeg kan se at du er aktiv på den engelske Wikipedia, og at du er fra Danmark. I skrivende stund, diskuterer vi på landsbybrønden et nyt forslag, om at starte en national afdeling, der vil blive kaldet Wikimedia Danmark. Hvis du er interesseret i at bidrage med noget tid til at få startet afdelingen, kan du skrive dit navn på denne side hos meta. Tak for din tid! Mike H. Fierce! 08:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference for the revision you just made to Disney's PhotoPass concerning sale of photopass CDs on DCL?--RadioFan (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photopass CDs are still not sold on DCL (as the article correctly notes, there is no connection between DCL and PhotoPass), but you can now buy a CD with all the pictures taken on your cruise. Here is one reference: Photo CDs, but that one is not suitable for inclusion in the article. Rasmus (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rasmus Faber! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 228 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Guillaume Cornelis van Beverloo - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rasmus Faber. You have new messages at Philippe (WMF)'s talk page.
Message added 07:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hej!

Den 23. september er der Wikidag 2012 i København. Der bliver workshops og oplæg og mulighed for at mødes "i den virkelige verden" med andre wikipedianere. Det vil glæde os at se en masse mennesker! --Palnatoke (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gunilla Sköld-Feiler is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunilla Sköld-Feiler until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Shrike (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rasmus Faber. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rasmus Faber. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gunilla Sköld-Feiler is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunilla Sköld-Feiler (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rasmus Faber. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rasmus Faber! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 20:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rasmus Faber. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Supersolid phase.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]