User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2008

Archive 2005

Archive 2006

Archive 2007

Archive 2008

Copyright breach for Simpsons material query

Hi Arthur,

Myles325 here. I made a contribution to the Talk Page for Debagging, and you removed some dialogue from a Simpsons episode I had quoted there, on the grounds that it was a “clear breach of copyright”. I cannot agree with this. I quoted about 10 lines or so, and only in for purposes of research. It has ALWAYS been accepted that such minor cites constitute fair dealing. If your rules were to be generally employed, most research into anything would be severely hamstrung, and most especially in WP. Are you sure you were justified in removing this material?

Further, you removed my additions to the Article Proper on the grounds that quotes from the Simpsons could not be accepted as legitimate citations. Well, I take your point Arthur, but sheesh, I mean it’s an article on people having their trousers pulled down already. I couldn’t find anything in Magna Carta. Notthere (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I consider that extract more than a "minor" part. On the other hand, The Simpsons pushes the edge of copyright violations themselves, so they might be willing to accept that.

Even so, we have a couple of books in the references section of the school pranks article, even if I'm not sure that the pranks in the article actually are mentioned in those books. Anything there would be allowable as an RS, even if those books would not normally be considered such. The Simpsons can't really be used as a reference from a real phenomenon, only as a reference for notability if the phenomenon is independantly verified. So, I don't think we can use that. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an expert on copyright law - I just play one on TV - but since the Simpsons site I quoted from is freely available to everyone, then how does this affect copyright? As the site owners and the Simpsons people cannot lose money, what rationale would they have for taking action, or even being miffed? I mean it is not as if someone is going to read MY small sample and then NOT go and watch that episode or go to the site. Rather, the reverse. And there wasn't even any spoilers in it. Still, it is probably worth discussing this, as the whole issue of copyright is so important to this project, and many other such projects. Notthere (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

ICR-again

Honestly, every time I add content to that article you find some reason to revert, and every time you have been shown my edit was accurately sourced and I prevail. Can you please at least ask before you revert? It's highly recommended at wikipedia to use the talk pages to avoid juvenile edit warring. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You may be accurate as to Texas, but not as to California, and you created the clear implication that ICR was accredited in California, which is false. Also, I tried to only revert one of your 7 edits. If I reverted more than one, I apologize. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Where are your sources????? What does "unaccredited accrediting agency" mean? TRACS is listed on the federal accrediting agency list, so please stop editing with omniscient assertions rather than sources. These edits are helter-skelter, like throwing spaghetti at the wall.Professor marginalia (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, you've put a POV tag on this claim: "TRACS accreditation is not accepted in the state of Texas". Here's a quote from the source, which is easily found by clicking on the link in the reference: "Texas does not recognize accreditation by TRACS". How is this edit POV? This is frustrating. As is your reluctance to discuss first.Professor marginalia (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's POV, because it implies that TRACS accreditation was accepted in the state of California. You are defending the statement's accuracy, which I quite agree with. See both the hidden comment and the edit summary for my reasoning. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:ICR - when they were in CA, they had TRACS apparently. That was previously in the article, though removed by me Now that they moved to TX, where TRACS is insufficient, they're seeking SACS because they now need something besides TRACS. That's it, not a pov issue but a confusion perhaps. Now that you've gone ahead and made some claim, unsourced, that TRACS was "not accepted in CA", source it please. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this somehow got dropped: That was previously in the article, though removed by me [1] because there was something funny about it-it looked like they'd lost accreditation, though published sources now available suggest that it was their move to TX that precipitated their no longer being accredited there. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If TRACS had been accepted in by California, the lawsuit wouldn't have been necessary. The settlement (at least the summary) doesn't mention TRACS, and the "current" (after 1995) exception also doesn't mention TRACS. Why the fact of TRACS accreditation is relevant to either California or Texas accreditation would need to be sourced (to someone other than TRACS or ICR). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with using deductive reasoning here instead of sources is that it uses assumptions that might prove correct but can't be assumed. I don't know anything about TRACS accreditation, but the article at WP about TRACS suggests that with the many changes they were forced to make in the last decade, the situation ten years ago won't necessarily apply today. Without a source, the claim can't stand--it's too strongly worded. There's probably an easier way to solve the problem, edits where nothing is implied about CA & accreditation at all. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not remove the TRACS allusion all together? Since it doesn't appear they have TRACS now, and didn't pertain to the state approval in CA, it's almost a digression. Take it out and we won't have so source some claim about TRACS and approval in California, since TRACS is purely an accrediting body for religious schools (or used to be at least), and CA doesn't even require religious universities to get approval. I'm guessing the state regs and TRACS probably never even intersect. Removing TRACS in that spot makes sense at least. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. However, if we don't say it's accredited by TRACS, someone else will say it's unaccredited. Although, in a rational world, it wouldn't be accredited, that's not where we are today. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I don't think it's accurate to say it's accredited by TRACS now. That's why I removed any such claim in Nov. Though I couldn't confirm anything, it looked like they'd lost their accreditation for some reason because neither the ICR nor TRACS were claiming it any longer. Without a current source accurately confirming the claim they were accredited, I took it out. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Vitamer

Thanks for the undeletion. I'll fix the refs. Blast the request page-- on the main page it says to add the template to the top of the page, and it really doesn't mean that literally. You're supposed to add it below the "request line". Arggh. SBHarris 21:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't the one who undeleted it, and I'm still not convinced it (the article) is appropriate. However, I understand your confusion. Any specific suggestions as to where templates should be placed would be appreciated. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I've added refs to the Vitamer article. It's a completely necessary technical word, for reasons explained in the TALK page and the one ref the article already contained when somebody PROD'ed it (without a good reason given). Or go to pubmed [2] and type in "vitamer" to see more than 2000 peer-reviewed scientific articles where the word is used.

As for suggestions for the instruction box, I added some specific text to it, explaining procedures which might seem obvious to the software creators, but won't be to a lot of relative newbies in making complaints of this nature (this is my first, and I've created a fair number of articles). Feel free to modify, but you must see screwups of this kind frequently, and they aren't ALL because people don't read. The main problem is the "date box" doesn't appear as such in the edit page the link takes you to. You have to recognize it from the HTML/markup, which not everybody will, immediately. SBHarris 23:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

the animated public service announcement series

Please explain why you are deleting this information before I have a chance to post and reference it. Thank you. Kita

I was the second to delete the article. May I suggest that what you need to do is work out the details on a subpage of your User page, and request someone to move it to the main area when it's done. You would need, at the least, a WP:RS referring to the concept. Listing (apparently non-notable) animated campaigns will not help your cause. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett

Why can't a book in which Barrett wrote three chapters be listed in his article? Should it be under "selected publications" instead? I didn't put it there because he didn't write all of the book (i.e. not a coauthor or coeditor). The "selected publications" even says "please expand". Bubba73 (talk), 22:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

animated PSA series

Hi Arthur, Thanks for your quick response. The producer director Firdaus Kharas is already listed in Wikipedia. HIs PSA series "The Three Amigos" won a Peabody Award this past June and has been supported by Archbishop Desmond Tutu as an effective tool against HIV AIDS. The spots have been tranlsted into 41 languages to date. Would it be best to include this information under Mr. Kharas's listing then? Originally I thought setting up an animated PSA series category would be useful as none exists in Wikipedia. Your advice here? Kita —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidiastarling (talk • contribs) 22:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Article "David Pipe"

Hello.

You reverted changes I made to the article on the footballer David Pipe. The changes I made were accurate.

Bristol Rovers now play in league 1, not league 2. And Pipe is known on the terraces at the Memorial Stadium as Pipey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.173.172 (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Attiitude

Please moderate your behaviour, not only was your recent message to me pompous it contained incorrect speculation: "you've made it clear you're not interested in improving the article." This is quite wrong. I made an edit to correct a bias that is all too common in Wikipedia, that is the default country is the USA. My edit was for the benefit of a global readership, many of whom will not have the knowledge of US cities as you may have. Therefore I have replaced United States. Please do not remove, and please be polite in the future correspondence with other editors as you risk driving away those trying to help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.253.126 (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Electrical insulation

Please could you give your reason for reverting my change to this article? I had simply given the external link a clearer description. Rather than improve the article your change damaged it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.253.126 (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Dartmouth College at BASIC

A fuller description of the location is needed so there are other colleges with the same name, for example, www.dartmouthcollege.co.uk/bayard/int/ , please do not revert otherwise you will confuse readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.253.126 (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

ICR

Another revert. I made a good effort to fully explain the edit and sources on talk page, so far ignored on your part. This is getting old. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your sources did not clearly support the contentions; but even if they did, the question of whether ICR has any positive reputation outside creationists is open, and there sources to the contrary. If you would state that it is the opinion of those sources that ICR has infulence, I wouldn't like it, but it would be in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse my bluntness. I am not convinced that you bother to check the references before you revert. (exhibit a). My edit was promptly restored by another editor who has read the source and agrees with the claim. Several times you have added or restored content simply on the basis of your own opinion of things, not sourced. And in this case, as before, you are reverting based on what you've managed somehow to read between the lines instead of simply what's written on the page. My edit does not say this organization "has any positive reputation outside creationism", does it? It said it has been "significant in shaping anti-evolutionist thought", which is not only sourced but largely self evident to anyone paying attention to the part they've played in the development of anti-evolutionist thought in the US in the latter half of the twentieth century. As several sources put it, the scientific community, who'd almost completely ignored them, was bowled over to discover a little late in the game just how much of an influence they had over attitudes in the mainstream. This should not be completely new to you, since a few examples are described on the talk page. I know you are an experienced editor, but any one of us might need a reminder now and again. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

QW

You opinion would be greatly appreciated in this matter. [3]Anthon01 (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

deletion of LogicNets entry as prominent expert system

Hello Arthur,

I am not sure why you keep deleting the entry for LogicNets in the prominent expert systems list. LogicNets has been around since 1999, and has been developed in collaboration with NASA. For you to delete and entry like LogicNets and keep listings like Informavores is not correct. Please explain your rationale or stop doing this without explaining yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.159.88 (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to cat flap

Hi there! I have no opinion one way or another on this article, but you replaced the references tag with the reflist template in cat and explained your edit as "clean up" in the edit summary. As the in appropriate page and section in the manual of style says, both ways of making the list of references are acceptable. - Enuja (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intend to replace any <references/> tags unless they were also within <small></small> tags., but I may have made a mistake. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Clean up

I certainly appreciate what you are doing in terms of removing extra white-space, et cetera. Thanks. But recognize that according to AWB rules of use: Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from links (unless they are bad links), or something equally trivial. This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists. Just thought you should know. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point indeed. (Sorry Arthur, could not resist. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that sounds like a stupid reason. Obviously comes from a computer tech rather than a copyeditor ;-) -- Dēmatt (chat) 17:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Lyle Zapato

Oops looks like I was in the middle of a major cleanup at the same time you were editing. But I think we seem to be in agreement about several things. Rather than try to piece together the changes you made, do you mind looking over the ones I made and adding yours? If you do mind, let me know and I'll take care of it. Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we were thinking of the same approach, but you made some changes I didn't think of. If you're done, I'll work on reinserting my changes. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'm done, sorry again for stomping on your edits. Katr67 (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Alex Jones (radio). Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. — madman bum and angel 20:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Per your assertion that you reverted your fourth revision, you reverted your fifth: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Please note that you are also not entitled to three-reverts per day; you're edit-warring in any event and can be blocked for such. Cheers, — madman bum and angel 20:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Arthur Rubin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Well, I intended to restore the 3rd revert, merely adding, "According to Jones", but apparently I failed to do so. Even so, all the reversions consist of noting that information about other living people, which were sourced only to the subject of the article, was so unsourced. I need a wikibreak, anyway, though.

Decline reason:

reason — Enjoy the break. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Regarding the User:3rdMouse account of yours, that would be block evasion. See WP:SOCK. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Very well; I just thought I would put a note on the User page saying it's me. It's not important, though, so it can wait. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My oops, regarding Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth

Hi. I am posting this comment regarding your revert of my edit. What I meant to write was, at least eight stars to pass within one light-year of the Sun within one million years. In other words, I messed up. I didn't realise my mistake until your revert. The source mentions that at least eight stars to pass closer than Proxima Centauri within the next one million years, Alpha Centauri and Barnard's Star being two of them. I'm pretty sure by the wording that it means they will pass within one light-year. However, if you dispute this, I could change it to within 4.3 light-years. Of course one million light-years is a big mistake, there are roughly 2x10^11 stars within just 10^5 light-years! So, it wasn't meant to be nonsense, I just added an extra "million", probably because I saw the other million. So, if you don't mind, may I re-add the information (it's sourced) that "at least eight stars are expected to pass within 4.3 light-years of the Sun, including Alpha Centauri and Barnard's Star"? Also, I think we should have an article listing stars to pass near the Sun in the near future. Appologies for any inconvenience. Thank you. ~AH1^(TCU) 15:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm blocked at the moment, but I see your point. Go ahead and add it, with references. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Y10k

We edit conflicted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Year 10,000 problem (4th nomination). I leave you to put your comment back in the light of my edit. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please Do not Leave Messages on My Talk Page

I do not wish to speak to you. I did not violate the revert rule, just reverting vandalism.Likebox (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You've still done 3 reverts on that article today. You haven't violated WP:3RR yet (at least, as I write this). And, if you add the "information" again, your name will appear prominently in WP:AN/3RR. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I see the notice was unnecessary, because you've already been blocked for 3RR. Sorry about telling you something you already have been informated by multiple admins. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason I asked you not to write on my talk page is because you were acting in what seemed to me to be an annoying bureaucratic way. Sometimes when something is contested, you try rewriting it many times to please everybody. This means that you rewrite with slightly different language multiple times. It isn't an edit war until people get entrenched and cannot come to compromise anymore. Your knee-jerk 3RR tagging at (arguably) 2RR seemed to me to be rude at best.

As for being blocked in the past, it was the same sort of thing. I made multiple rewrites trying to find language that was acceptable, but failed, and got blocked. The only difference was that in the previous case I got pissed off, and said hotheaded things.

Look, if you just try to see things the other guy's way a little, I will extend the same courtesy.Likebox (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

small peeve

I wish you would be a little less destructive of things as you edit. For instance, if you believe as you do that Model (abstract) does not belong under the Philosophy/Logic banner, could you at least put it under the "maths ratings|field=foundations" while you are at it? This is actual disruption, unlike your crying about the math logic category. Likewise today with all of this metalogic. You could at the VERY least put a link under "See also", so that someone in the future may write something intelligent about any connections. (I suppose you have already decided for everyone that there are none. Way to go.)

You have a very narrow view about the way things are supposed to be around here. Please remember this is a publically editable Wikipedia, and you can't have your narrow view to the exclusion of other views here. Why cry so much about metalogic? Just put it under mathematical logic and logic and leave it alone. It's just a shame that I'm so open-minded about things all the time only to be bullied around by you and a team of others.

Restriction of subject matter is a strong source of identity, especially in the abstract arts like math and logic. Get over it. Stay cool. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you point to a diff? I don't think I changed Model (abstract) lately (i.e, in 2007 or later). I moved Model theory out of Category:Metalogic because it's in Category:Model theory, but.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Your summary was "No way" diff. You are taking the conservative interpretation. If the category Model theory is under Metalogic, then it also makes sense that the article is also. I think it usually works that way. It's only when you are taking pains to exclude certain subject matter that we find ourselves skirting things like this. I get the sense that you are holding your nose already just to have a metalogic category. Maybe someday the WP will be sufficiently advanced so as to have a metamathematics category and a metalogic category with plenty of material on both that is unique to each, and also with plenty of overlap too. Ebony and ivory... Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I was reading the wrong diff. Sorry. Still, Model (abstract) is not a topic in mathematical logic, or (at least as I see it) philosophical logic. Systemics, perhaps. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

negotiating strategy and tactics for getting your POV (even if NPOV

Arthur Rubin:"negotiating strategy and tactics for getting your POV (even if NPOV) into an article is considered inapproriate." Please supply source showing "considered inapproriate". Am concerned that your statement above applies to editor getting advice on how to deal with nonWP:POLICY editor. SmithBlue (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy page

I think the discussion should continue on the homeopathy page. I thought of copying your comments to the homeopathy page. What do you think? Anthon01 (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK with me. It may be my concerns and conjectures are without merit, but whether the paper may be appropriate for inclusion in Homeopathy should be discussed somewhere. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of algorithms category

Hello, Big O notation is very often used by Analysis of algorithms. I don't see why you removed 'Analysis of algorithms' category from this article. Andreas Kaufmann (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's used, but my interpretation of the (see also) section of article A for topics used in subject A, rather than subjects which use subject A, or articles which someone studing subject A would be interested in. This relationship is solely in the reverse direction. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello. You may have seen that some Wikipedia articles lack sources to given dates, timelines and chronologies.
If you feel that you could like to help in making all articles more reliable and well sourced in this regard, we would like to encourage you to use, as part of your daily editing and when {{fact}} is not enough for requesting clearly and specifically a citation or source for dates, timeline or chronology, the following inline tag:

{{Timefact}} displays ^{{chronology source needed}} for requesting timelines, dates and chronology sources. Click here for more information

At WP Timeline Tracer, we thank you for using these tools and for helping to make Wikipedia articles more accurate and reliable.

Daoken 10:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Peace

		The Barnstar of Peace
		message Wshallwshall (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to give you this barnstar because you didn't call me an idiot, even though I deserved it. I messed up on that school bullying article... quite a brain fart. I'm new to the issue of moving pages and I messed up. Thank you for dealing with it factually instead of pointing out that it was stupid.

Date preferences

Try playing around with your preferences again - if a person has their preferences set to day-month-year, the software gets rid of the comma automatically. If they are set to month-day-year, the comma is visible. I just checked this on my user page. Natalie (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The specific example is [[25 January]] [[2008]], which shouldn't have a comma if date preferences are off. I agree that, if date preferences are on, the software takes care of it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think all accounts have date preferences, and they are all automatically set to D-M-Y, as are the IP settings. That, of course, might have changed. But it really doesn't matter how it looks in the edit window, because the software will take care of it no matter what. Natalie (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

binary relation

I'd like to point out that superscripted "th" is shunned by manuals of style, including, most importantly, our own guideline. -- EJ (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that only applies to numbers, not variables. I suppose "j^th" is not much worse than "jth", but we need to watch the italics very carefully, as "jth" is just wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, formally speaking MOSNUM indeed applies to numbers, but I think it is natural to use the same principle for other objects as well unless there is a compelling reason against it. What you say about italics is true though. -- EJ (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment

Your input in this RfC would be most appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean?

Hi,

Hi, What do you mean by a personal attack? I am using a new software called Huggle to revert edits, how exactly am I not helpful, nothing in this history shows that? The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Review)} 20:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the comment I made on User_talk:Area69 please explain your comment.

Thanks,

-- The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Review)} 20:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, in context, I don't think I would have used uw-vand2, but uw-test2. There's a difference between clearly irrelevant or inappropriate comments on a talk page and vandalism. Sorry about the reference to huggle templates. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:RightGot and school prank

Hi,

Is there any reason to assume this article is going to eventually be useful? I was going to AfD it (as RightGot removed the prod) but I see the old page (i.e. the one now at school bullying, or School Bullying: List of Actions or wherever on Earth it's ended up) has quite a history of AfDs and didn't want to go messing around. Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the list of pranks seems to have two sources which have lists of pranks, so it's more difficult to AfD. I have no objection to attempting to AfD the article, but the sources may be real. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment

In order to avoid the appearance of redundancy, I went in a slightly different direction and moved the old talk page to Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment - examples, then moved the page at the new title you created back to Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Your revert on regular number

I've been in email contact with Dgutson (talk · contribs) regarding his edits to regular number, which seem to be original research. It was looking likely that he would revert them himself after I showed him the relevant policies, but his plan was to wait a little longer and think a little more before doing so. So, while I think your revert is correct, I think he is a good faith editor who with some care can be coaxed into making more helpful edits to WP. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Note

Does it seem to you that some editors want to stir the pot as opposed to succussing the bottle? ;-) Anthon01 (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that. I find it difficult to edit, as I believe the evidence clearly shows that homeopathy doesn't work, but that that fact is disputed. You seem to be approaching differently; in that you seem to believe that the evidence clearly shows that it does work, but you agree that that is disputed. And then we have SA on one side and a few others on the other side who don't want the POV they don't hold in the article at all. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

One caveat to your statement. Semmelweiss was considered wrong until science caught up. I have practiced Alt-med for 22 years and have seen over 4,000 patients; many of my clinical observations in the 1980s have been confirmed as nutrition science has evolved in particular the work done at the Harvard Public school of health by Walter Willett. I don't know what the future will bring for homeopathy, but my limited experience has surprised me, and the effects both positive and negative go far beyond 30%. Anthon01 (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So lets say I am curious about it. Cheers. Anthon01 (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Me?a Bot? :D

No i'm not a bot. I'm using Huggle to fight vandalism but sometimes make a mistake. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 17:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Note on homeopathy

I responded to your comment. You may have missed it. Homeopathy is an article about a minority topic. Please point me to policy that says mainstream science should get most of the room in the article? Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's a minority topic.... It's discussed (generally unfavorably) in mainstream news and science. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure we are on the same page. WP:WEIGHT says Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them. On such pages, a view may be explicated in great detail, even though it must make sufficient reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not mis-represent the majority viewpoint. Doesn't homeopathy fall under this description of minority? Anthon01 (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy article probation notification

You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. —Whig (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

2008

hi Arthur,

I [see] that you have deleted the reference to World Vegan Day, as non-notable.

While to this point, I am a confirmed carnivore, it seems to me that any event with such an extensive Wikipedia entry and observed by such a well-established organisation could be considered notable.

Your thoughts?

Hal Halibutron (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It was in the wrong section (#Events, rather than #Holidays), and it's still minor, as holidays/annual commemerations go. The first one might be properly listed (in 1994). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thought you'd be interested

New section on child sexual abuse talk page - anything to add? Talk:Child_sexual_abuse#Further_reading_and_EL WLU (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Uri Geller (again)!

Hi Arthur. You should probably know better than me, but I fail to see why the video does not violate copyright. The copyright surely belongs to Pro7. Or is there some rule about the length of the excerpt?
What is also interesting to note is that the user name of the person that made that edit is the same as the user name that uploaded the video to YouTube! Surely his nicely done home-made translation subtitles do not free him from the copyright of the underlying video picture. Regards TINYMARK 23:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I spoke too soon. As you may assume, I was not logged in when I did that edit. The link I intended to delete was the YouTube video not the Randi video. But I notice you seem to have also undone the reorg. Personally, I think an introduction of more than two sentences is a sign of a badly structured article, and anything after the first paragraph in this article could be placed in other sections. TINYMARK 23:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Homeopathy

Hi, I don't want to get into that stress filled article, but it is interesting reading. I saw your comment and the wording "small to immeasurable infinitesimal quantities" occurred to me. Ward20 (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Beth number

You reverted the addition of an odd bit of trivia on the Beth number article earlier. I left the material out, but added a note on the talk page (Talk:Beth number#Counterfactuals) as it appears that, bizarre as the material was, it may be legit. Of course it may still be unsuited for the article. I just thought it was worth mentioning.

Cheers!

CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Nakon 23:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Arthur Rubin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

consideration of whether User:Snowfire51 and User:Hereward77 were acting in concert, thereby violating 3RR first. Obviously, I can't bring it up while blocked, and it would clearly be stale when my block expires. (Furthermore, only 3 of the 5 edits are reverts, but I should have started providing reasoning after the first revert, so the edit warring is still improper.

Decline reason:

You still violated 3RR. 3RR does not allow you to get an exception just because someone else is breaking it too. Not how it works. - Revolving Bugbear 00:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC))

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

FWIW, User:Hereward77 lied about my sock. While I was blocked last time, I asked whether I could create the notes that the other account was mine, and I received the word "no", and a sockpuppet warning was placed on my other account. I haven't replaced it with a clean acknowledgment of the identity of accounts yet, and won't do it while blocked.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Alex Jones (radio)

I'd like to apologize. Things got a bit heated earlier on the Alex Jones (radio) article earlier today, and things kind of escalated in a way I don't think either of us wanted to happen. For what it's worth, I'm not a meatpuppet or sock, and I actually agree with you that he should be listed as a conspiracy theorist, we just differ on how wikipedia should go about it.

I hope there are no hard feelings over this, one look at either of our contributions will show that we both have a history of improving wikipedia. However, I also know you don't have to accept my apologies, and you're well within your rights to tell me to go climb a tree or something else more profane and descriptive. Either way, I just wanted to try and make an effort to clear things up. Sorry again for the way things turned out. Snowfire51 (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I see the problem. I still don't think that's a reliable source about Jones; in fact, I'm beginning to wonder if there are any reliable sources about him at all. Almost all the references we have are to his web sites or archives of his shows (and I'm not sure whether they're his archives, or an independent archivist, but they don't appear to be even as reliable as the network his show appears on.) I'd appreciate it if you'd retag the source as unreliable; but, even if it were reliable, it doesn't preclude conspiracy theorist appearing in the "known for" field, and it does not support "documentary filmmaker", although it does support some of the other "known for" (which should have been in "occupation").

I would appreciate it if you would retag the source as {{verify credibility}} (of quote); the rest of the article seems at least marginally relevant, even if it's fair and balanced. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of tools while blocked

It is not appropriate to use the block tool while blocked. As a technical matter, the tool is available (if it weren't, then a compromised account could block everyone and there would be nothing that could be done) but it is inappropriate to use it for ordinary purposes. --B (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My talk

I was a bit paranoid after the other night but really I am not wanting to remove my talk history, I'll try and fix the archive and link to it on my talk page. My only real wish has been to have my user page history removed as i identified who and where I am on countless occasions. Sure I have elsewhere on wikipedia butt hat is not big deal, my only concern is that I should have the same right other users do to edit anonymously, by which I mean have no identifying info on my user page or in its history. I have been staying away from AN/I, I hope this message is clear and thanks for a prompt response. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Although it may be an WP:OVERSIGHT question, as admins can (probably) see the deleted edits with your identity (I haven't checked, which is why I said "probably"), I agree your user page is your own to delete (unless, possibly, you were banned), so that's a reasonable resolution. Sorry about blocking you, but the AN/I comments were just too weird to let go without some action. Suggesting banning User:El C was another option, which I'd rather not take, at this time.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What was your reason for blocking SqueakBox? and what was the block reason all about? I'm sorry, but no undeleting there talk page (without access to the tools to do it) seems completely innapropriate given it is now in his block log for life. The block was completely punative. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The block was about his (and some Admins') mangling of his talk page history, violating GFDL. However, it appears that his talk archive was never actually deleted, just the intermediate moves. I do feel the renaming A>B>C>D, and requesting deletion of B and C, really is a violation requiring some action, even if D is still intact, and they are all within his user talk space. He has an extensive block history, so I don't see that my block really detracts from his reputation. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record I never asked for my talk history to be deleted. Not sure about blocking El C, he remains one of the most highly respected admins, IMHO. Anyway, its all sorted now, take care, and good luck with your Spanish. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

3 days for 3rr?

That seems pretty draconian. And to think that nearly two years ago I got pummeled for blocking a notorious edit warrior and sock puppeteer for 17 hours!--CSTAR (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What can I say? It was a second offense, sort of. I still don't think that source is reliable, although it is (sort-of) verifiable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits for later comment

• Alex Jones; 23:39, February 9, 2008 PST (and previous) (AP is a reliable source, but background information about people other than the subject of the article is marginal; Willie Nelson is the subject) Further discussion on talk page.
• Law of Attraction; 08:23, February 10, 2008 anon vandalism (2) and partial repair -- further edits to article.

• Photo manipulation; 11:27, February 10, 2008 Addition of Museum of Hoaxes to EL? (Multiple succeeding changes, this refers only to the link)
• Multiple personality controversy; 18:36, February 10, 2008 Changes seem incorrect, although I haven't verified whether they match the sources.

• Reimann zeta function 14:23, February 10, 2008 multiple adding new section which should probably be in a different article.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked; but these require some more research. Please do not edit this sections, as it's a scratchpad for future edits. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A Confusing Revert

Please, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=21st_century&diff=187453272&oldid=187203475 . Note that Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania were occupied and incorporated in the Soviet Union. Latvian, Lithuanian or Estonian communist states have never existed. It is wrong to tie these countries by any means with communism. I see no reason for a revert like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.199.126.2 (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I had assumed that you were just removing information. If the information you were removing was wrong, that's different. There's a lot of vandalism on 21st century, as it's both {{current}} and potentially huge. Please feel free to correct it, provided you note the problem in the edit summary field. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Abusing the truth

Hi Arthur,

I am tired of User:Abuse truth. I asked not to revert but to discuss in talk:Indictment: The McMartin Trial and he reverted nonetheless and merely posted the same nonsense in that talk he had posted in a previous edit summary.

I will leave an identical note to Richard A. Norton. What can be done with this behavior? I mean it. How is it possible that as to date the WP community has been unable to ban this blatant pov pushing of the most grotesque conspiracy theories with no disciplinary action whatsoever?

—Cesar Tort 05:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a user conduct WP:RfC? I don't hold hope that anything would come of it, othet than all but 1 editor believes his edits are uniformly in violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (although 2 respected editors think they sometimes provide a grain of evidence which can be fixed up later), and even that editor believes that his failure to discuss before his 3rd addition of censored material is not helpful, but a worthless RfC seems necessary for an WP:RfAr. However, please read the guidelines for RfC carefully. A failed RfC (certification not met) would tend to credit his actions. My actions haven't been beyond reproach, but I still think his clear misstatement of the content of online sources (I have no idea whether he's misstated the content of sources I haven't read), addition of sources relevant only to a related topic, and addition of sources of questionable reliability and bias and removal of clearly reliable (although biased) sources, and failure to discuss such changes until his third attempt to change the article, strikes me as grounds for discussion. I suppose addition of material related to the accuracy of a documentary might be allowable, but it hasn't been allowed in Loose Change. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm not sure the #Film chapters section is encyclopedic. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeap! You can remove it if you like :) Cesar Tort 17:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

guidelines for the naming of articles

Like too many other editors who have contributed to the current renaming debate at 9/11 conspiracy theories, you claimed that what "reliable sources" call something is a consideration in choosing names for articles, despite the fact that it had already been pointed out that this was not the case. Please do not misrepresent wikipedia policy and guidelines in this way because it causes a lot of confusion. ireneshusband (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, I didn't say that. If no reliable source calls it X, then we can't call it X, as that would be WP:OR in the name. If the primary name used by reliable sources is pejorative (about which, by the way, I disagree in this case), we may use what some secondary reliable sources call it, instead. I'm not sure what we do if all sources call something by a pejorative name. I suppose we'd have to use it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul Erdos

Basically, he's within the scope of WP:EDUCATION because hes in a subcategory of Category:Education, probably Category:Hungarian mathematicians or Category:Calculating prodigies. If you want, you can remove the project tag, im too fussed either way. Twenty Years 17:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

about the double-standard way of describing people in calendar pages

we dont list what they are famous for ? then why it is done for politicians and guitarists? it is listed what was the post of a politician which is clearly what he/she is famous for and it is also listed which music bands a guitarist were a member of. not mentioning what people are famous for in this case just shows a double-standard in doing calendar pages. I do not revert them unless you give me reasons. I dont know why we must descriminate in favour of politicians and Guitarists. if this man is the 16th president of united states, that man is also the 1st man who observed red blood cells. Lenin1870to1924 (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Bring it up in Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Days of the Year. It's the current convention that Presidents, royalty, nobel laureates, and musicians are further identified. I'll continue to revert your additions. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

so there is a double-standard in favour of those 4 groups of people. bad for scientists and filmmakers :D . okey, I act according to current convention. but as you may know it is not the current convention of for example "today in history" websites. Lenin1870to1924 (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of dropping the musicians, myself. Does that help? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

no ! :D
give artists a chance. musicians are the only artists among them. + you forgot to mention athletes. important medals are listed for them. anyway, I took a look at all archives of the page you mentioned, i mean the wikiproject Days of the year Talk page. I had read the article page of it yesterday. if the goal is to keep Wikicalendar pages most clean and tidy and well-shaped then it is better to follow the current convention you mentioned. thats a trade-off between fast access to the main datas and having a clean page.Lenin1870to1924 (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:On RM

A tag has been placed on Template:On RM requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverts such as to Palomar Observatory

Please stop reverting helpful additions. Please step back and consider whether you are reverting these changes for the benefit of Wikipedia, or to win an arguement. I have tried to make articles more relevant to a global readership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.253.126 (talk • contribs) 16:17, January 6, 2008

Hi Arthur, I agree with 86.147.253.126. You reverted a change I added as a violation of neutral point of view, but you provided no help whatsoever on how this edit violates NPOV. If you look at the talk pages, you'll see that I had already asked for feedback on NPOV questions. Dscotese (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Day care sex abuse hysteria and McMartin preschool trial

Hi Arthur. I have revertedboth your earlier reverts of User:Crum375 as those changes were made by a decidedly banned editor. Crum was reverting these edits per policy as banned editors have no right to edit WP. If you wish to stand by these changes, please be aware of the situation and clarify that you are standing by these edits in your own right and not supporting a banned editor. Thanks - Alison ^❤ 19:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I do stand by the edits, regardless of whether truthy is a banned editor, for which I see no evidence. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The evidence is checkuser evidence, and I cannot reveal it per privacy policy. Email me and I'll provide what details I can under the rules - Alison ^❤ 20:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get back to deciding which parts of the edit I believe to be clearly independently justified, probably tomorrow. He wasn't even blocked at the time of the reversions, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"He wasn't even blocked at the time of the reversions" — you may want to double-check that. Crum375 (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Banned users are banned, period. If you restore their edits you are violating the ban. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that is wrong. restoring their edits mean you take responsiblility for them. Otherwise,a banned user could prevent insertion of correct information in an article by inserting it themselves. In this case, the McMartin edits made the article better than it was, and the merge request had previously closed in the other article. However, I'll check the other edits in detail and verify their correctness before I reinsert. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

1st Year of Millenia

umm dude, most people recognize 2000 as the 1st year of the current millenium, meaning that 3000 is beginning of next millenium, 1000 is beginning of 2nd millenium, etc. though if we were to be looking at this mathematically, you would be correct. however, due to wide recognition of 2000 as the first year, we could just say the 1st century was an oddball and only had 99 years. since i respect other people's opinions, i won't keep changing the year range on the millenia/century pages. thanks for listening. --66.94.154.5 (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Wikipedia convention, and the common perception in most centuries before the 21st, was that centuries and millennia include the 00/000 year at the end. If you disagree, please get a consensus for change in Talk:Millennium before you attempt to change the articles. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The book of Hungarian orthography not being a source

Hi! Why do you think that the book of the Hungarian spelling rules, published by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in 1984 does not count as a source? Is there some criteria about the source having to be in English? – Kdano (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A wikipedia article is not a source. The organisation might be, but we only have the editor's word on that. You need a publication by that organization, even if only on paper, and even if only in the Hungarian language. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A magyar helyesírás szabályai (The Rules of the Hungarian Spelling) is a publication. It's a book. The author is the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA). And this book has been uploaded to the Hungarian Wikisource. I just thought it would be useful if I attached a link to the online version of the book. – Kdano (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You quoted the Hungarian Academy of Sciences as the source, rather than the publication (or at least, that's all I saw as the link). As I don't speak Magyar, I can't comment further. As far as I'm considered, the Hungarian Wikisource qualifies at least as a courtesy URL (an unofficial, but credible, copy of the source). If you like, we can work out the proper citation format so that it's clear to all exactly what the source is. Perhaps the source should be:

Magyar Tudományos Akadémia. "Egyéb tudnivalók". A magyar helyesírás szabályai (courtesy copy) (in Magyar).{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)

You may add other fields from {{cite book}}, but that should make it clear what we're talking about. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

wp:bio

Hi Arthur,

Just wanted to confirm the problem with the page I set up. I read through the reasons for the deletion, wp:bio, and the only thing I can come up with is the nobility. So what your saying is that because this person has no published material he is not allowed to have a page? Is there anything I can do to get this page up, i.e., removed his birth date, remove that he is a philosopher? Any help would be appreciated, thanks.

Giveuspeace (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, there's just nothing published about him. If he had published, even if he then disclaimed copyright, and those publications were discussed in WP:RS, then he could have an article. If there were discussion about him in WP:RS, then he probably should have an article. But there's no "there" there. The general "rule" on Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth". There's nothing verifiable (as we define verifiable) about him.

Prove me wrong. If you can find something to convince me that I'm wrong about him, I'll help you keep the article up (I won't help you much in writing it, but....) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Great thanks

Hi Arthur,

I appreciate the quick response, I fully understand now. This person though, as I mentioned in my talk, doesn't have any published material, because he doesn't believe in making money from his creative works. So I will contact him and find out if he has any articles discussing him or any groups he has been involved with. Again, thx for the clear response.

Giveuspeace (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Barry Chamish

Mr. Chamish is not an "anti-Semite". He sacrificed his career to expose the criminal operation to destroy the Jewish state of Israel. If you are really Jewish you would be more concerned by the fact that Mr. Pipes and his fellow Trotskyoid Neocon Bolshevik friends are hanging out in the CFR with the likes of James A. Baker III, an open enemy of Israel. Instead, you choose to promote Mr. Pipes' smears against an honest and patriotic Jew. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Pipes' commentary on Mr. Chamish appears to be as credible as Mr. Chamish's commentary on associates of Mr. Pipes, at least as far as the references you've used indicate. And I'm not sure I see the relevance of either. You're welcome to add a an {{irrel}} tag to Mr. Pipes commentary, but removal of the tag I added seems to be vandalism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

also nomination ?

They pop up faster than you nominate them: Category:Mechanical energy gearing (see [9]). --VanBurenen (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the gearing should be a separate issue, myself. That actually seems a reasonable topic, although not under that name. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Lake

Just FYI - I painstaking spent time on a list of lakes to go through and move articles from French, Italian, Spanish, German, and Dutch to proper English titles... and that was the only article which User Docu seemed to want to claim ownership on and revert. Rarelibra (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

But thank you for addressing the issue. Rarelibra (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry about deleting the evidence of User:Docu's misdeeds, but I was reverting multiple copy/paste moves back and forth. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this renaming dispute. It is sad that a "convention" consisting of two short sentences (Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_English_words) is used as a battle axe to wreak havoc in carefully edited articles. Some names that User:Rarelibra has invented for the titles of various articles are really quite silly if not ridiculous, and are just meant for the wikipedia world. And he did not consistently translate the names of lakes in Scotland, Wales, or Ireland (see List_of_lakes). I did put the question to him why not. In my opinion it is a mess now. The names were carefully edited and consistent across many articles up till now. The English language wikipedia is not just for the countries where English is spoken as a first language, it is the one wikipedia that crosses all borders of international communication and, therefore, needs to be more careful in its dealing with naming conventions. Even the large German wikipedia, considered in many cases qualitative better than the English version, but for a much smaller German speaking audience, uses for titles the names that are used locally. The National Geographic Atlas of the World uses local names as well. Using the "google count" as measure for naming an article would be much more logical. --VanBurenen (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Moving articles

Would you move Lake of Gruyère back to where it was and let people discuss the change on talk first? It's highly unusual to do it without inviting other editors to comment first.

BTW, would you detail what you mean with "Docu's misdeeds" (previous section of this page)? Fixing copy-and-paste moves is surely not a misdeed, -- User:Docu

No, fixing copy/paste moves isn't the misdeed, which I corrected in the ANI section. Moving it from Lake to Lac was the misdeed, per Wikipedia naming guidelines. (Furthermore, I think I removed the block to moving it back, although I'm not sure whether 3RR applies to moves.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In the article's history, you will find that Darwinek created it with the title "Lac de la Gruyère" [10], not "Lake of la Gruyère", "Lake de la Gruyère", "Lake Greyerzer", "GreyerzerLake", etc. Such moves need to be considered carefully, otherwise we will end up with articles like Artificial lake Mooserboden (probably based on de:Stausee Mooserboden). Looking at rare's pagemove log, I doubt this is being done. -- User:Docu

Would you please move Lake of Gruyère back to Lac de la Gruyère until a move discussion has taken place? -- User:Docu

WP:BOLLOCKS

Hi Arthur,

RE: the basis of the controlled demolition conspiracy theory The basis of the conspiracy might be bollocks, but the section is in the article for a reason, and so the basis of the conspiracy should be there so that readers can check the sources. Do you think there is a different basis for the conspiracy theory, or do you think that the conspiracy theory's basis should be left out of the section dedicated to it? I don't understand. Note that I did not claim the basis to be accurate, I merely provided references to it. No one has questioned Keith Eaton's credibility or that of the structural engineer Dscotese (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe the conspiracy theory's basis should be left out of Collapse of the World Trade Center, especially since there's no source that that is the basis. The the structural engineer article is clearly not reliable for the question of what the basis might be. Perhaps it should be in Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center, but I'm really not convinced that an engineering journal whose name is not in standard title case (i.e., the Structural Engineer) can be a credible engineering journal. But that could be your error, rather than that of the journal. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to look at the webpage for the journal and see how they use letter case."New York visit reveals extent of WTC disaster" (PDF). the structural engineer. 80: 6. September 3, 2002. It's also pretty easy to read Steven Jones' paper and decide for yourself what is the basis for the hypothesis. Are we supposed to assume that readers are just too stupid to make these simple connections upon reading the sources? If you've read it, and disagree, what would you say is the basis? If not, I'd recommend it.

The British have different titling conventions, so I probably should withdraw that part of my comment. I've read a number of Jones's papers, and found them unconvincing. As for basis, different conspiracy theorists undoubtably have different (basises? bases?) for their beliefs. We would certainly need a mainstream reliable source as to what the basis for the conspiracy theories might be. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"I've read a number of Jones's papers, and found them unconvincing." - I don't think you believe that an editor's skepticism about material in a source should have any effect on that editor's decision about whether to let stand a contribution that another editor has made. The point behind providing sources is to allow the reader to make his own judgment. So I suspect you'll withdraw that argument too. That leaves me with the explanation that a mainstream source would have to make the claim that the molten metal is foundational to the controlled demolition hypothesis. But this puts an undue burden on contributors to WP: rather than enforcing "No original research," you are enforcing "mainstream research only," which cuts away a vast amount of knowledge. You are making it difficult for me to assume good faith on your part. Should I give up? Dscotese (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I found Jones's papers unconvincing to the point that they make me question the credibility of the journal they're contained in. In fact, I find the claim of any review (not to mention peer review) incredible, for the papers that I've read. If you wish to point me to one of his papers which survives basic arithmetic checking, I may reconsider. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa dude, so do you believe that an editor's skepticism about material in a source justifies that editor's decision *to delete* a contribution that another editor has made? I've actually never read a Steven Jones paper in a journal. What journal did you look at? What basic arithmetic checking did it fail? And also, you didn't address the question of original research versus mainstream research.Dscotese (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The question of whether a source is reliable is based on editor discretion; if a journal contains too many articles with clear misstatements of fact, it cannot be considered reliable, even if (claimed to be) peer reviewed. In the case of Jones' articles in J911S, they have sufficient arithmetic errors to confirm that J911S is not reliable. "Unconvincing" was the wrong word; "containing clear misstatements of fact" is closer. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have sources to back up your claim that Jones' paper contains arithmetic errors? Or do you rely on the reader's ability to do math? I can do math too, but I would need to know what calculations you refer to in order to verify that he's in error. Also, J911S doesn't mean much to me. Can you explain what you're talking about when you use that code? Dscotese (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

J911S = Journal of 911 studies at http://journalof911studies.com/ . As for the arithmetic errors, there's a "mainstream" 911 newsletter, which has a least the same reliablility status and verifies that the "free fall" time is considerably less than Jones claims, and which formulas can be verified at least to academic standards. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, feel free to point out the discrepancy between the "mainstream" "free fall time" and that presented in a Jones paper at J911S (as long as you can show that both are talking about the same thing) in the appropriate sections of WP. However, please refrain from using it to reject good information about the evidence that served to help create the controlled demolition hypothesis. Dscotese (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I only need to point out the errors if they were to be included in the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Continued reverting at "9/11 Conspiracy Theories"

By what standard do you remove what I added--well, actually it was another editor who originally added it; I only restored it--yet leave the other external links untouched? Certainly the discussions presented in the journal are of at least as high quality as those still remaining.

Simply to announce as "pathetic" and "laughable" all the submissions available for view at http://journalof911studies.com/ does not make them so. Apostle12 (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just referenced the "Truther" article, of which I was unaware prior to your mention of it. Thank you. This article does indeed explore the matter of rational questioning of the official version of events regarding 9/11.

What I wonder, though, is why these are two separate articles? And why does the "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" article make no mention of the "Truther" article? It seems to me these two articles should be cross-referenced in some manner, or even combined, since they deal with the same subject matter.

Regarding the Journal of 9/11 Studies, I wonder if you have reviewed the following article:

http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

It is difficult for me to dismiss the arguments this article contains. Apostle12 (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Spelling apologize

I discovered that I have misspelled your first name (Author instead of Arthur) in the discussion User_talk:Glenn#Category:Energy_control. That has now been corrected and I apologize for the misspelling. It was not meant as a offense. --Glenn (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There being no consensus, MfD result, or reason given for deleting the debate, merging.

Bet you this won't stick. - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But the result was "redirect", which does not exclude a merge. I won't edit war over it, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "Redirect" does not mean "Merge". Otherwise it would say "Merge and Redirect". Black Kite 01:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There have been disputes about that before, as well. There are also more complicated possible results, such as delete and redirect, or merge and delete (i.e. move to random-space) the redirect. But I don't see any reason given for removing (rather than archiving) the material. If it were an "attack page", then so would the previous comment. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venetian style shoe

Hi Arthur,

Just wanted to stop by and say thanks for clarifying my close on the AfD above. I tend to err on the side of verboseness when doing closes in order to minimize the chance that they'll be challenged based solely on my status as a non-admin by a user unhappy with the outcome--since I've seen a number of closes noting cleanup, I just followed the pattern there.

I see what you're saying about any such consensus being hypothetical, though, and I'll avoid it in the future. Thanks for the lesson! --jonny-mt 16:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. Actually, as no one else !voted delete (or equivalent, delete and salt, delete and block article creator, etc.) and I withdrew the nomination, a speedy close as withdrawn would be quite acceptable, even from a non-admin. I didn't feel comfortable doing it myself. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I read your second comment as a change in opinion rather than an explicit withdrawal of the nomination, and so I based the final call on the consensus of the discussion. Ah, well; glad it's all sorted out now :) --jonny-mt 04:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration, Good

Thanx...yes, your word "reported" is a good compromise to this situation (better than my word "found"). Thanx DanaUllman^Talk 21:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. I just posted something that deserves your attention at: [11]. Nothing serious, but just wanting to clear up your attack on the Linde (1994) paper. Can you acknowledge your (minor) mistake so that we can move on... DanaUllman^Talk 04:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes

can you tell me how to get the pro cannabis userbox on my userpage i can't figure out how to do it thnx Potheadpoet (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

{{User:Arthur Rubin/User pro-cannabis}} — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks for that Potheadpoet (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Venetian style shoe.

I trust you understand the removal of references appears to contradict the foundation of Wikipedia's fundamental rules regarding WP:V. Perhaps this is something you should bring up with at verifiability rules because nothing in the rules stipulates that it is necessary to exclude "dictionaries" and encyclopedic references. In fact, the threshold for inclusion according to WP:V is verifiability which "means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Currently you have removed many references from the article Venetian Style Shoe. Furthermore you have removed much relevant information. On top of that, the references you removed supported much of the information that was or is currently in the article. One example is the Microsoft 2007 reference which referred to the "loafer" as being from the 20th century. You removed this reference and on top of that you then requested that a reference be supplied. I would like to caution you that this may be seen as being disruptive. I trust we will communicate some more on the talk page so we can build a "proper" WP:consensus... hence avoiding edit conflicts as well as "comments" left within edit summaries and respecting Wikipedia's fundamental rules such as WP:V! Thank You --CyclePat (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(Other) encyclopedias should rarely be included as references. I suspect a scholarly fashion reference, or even a notable fashion (history) magazine, could source the information, if relevant. Dictionaries should almost never be included, although the etymology would be interesting if non-trivial. This etymology seems trivial. I'm trying to note that certain things you've included should not be there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This site seems not to be notable even within the "truth movement")

Please see Talk. Thank you. Apostle12 (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You are a MAN

From a man that you will recognize...

This is the main difference between you and; the other, between En.WP and an other WP!! you may hope what do you want, but just behave honestly as you do ... I stand up in front of you, then I lean foreward, as a sign of respect, gratefulness and real admiration for your HUMAN dimension... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.224.221.163 (talk) 02:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your contribution to the year articles Pathfinder2006 (talk) 21:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hey there Arthur.

Would you please reivew [[12]] and let me know where you believe this edit [[13]] falls under that "guideline" (don't think it is technically a guideline? Sethie (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's technically a guideline, either. I think your edit (IMHO) violated WP:LEAD, and the "guidelines" of Wikipedia:WikiProject Years. On controversial articles, I use the "minor" flag intentionally to indicate reversions of edits made against clear consensus, which don't qualify under 3RR. But I was just running on year patrol, and most of the random edits on future and present years are just wrong. Perhaps that one should stay, though. I won't revert if you reinsert it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to know where you were coming from.

I have opened a dialogue on the talk page of 2012 to see what others think.

You of course must and will use the minor tab as you see fit, though given the "guideline" :) I wouldn't feel good using it the way you describe. Sethie (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding

Dear friend: You made a change in Boubaker Polynomials page, If you are an administrator; we respect your decision in respect to EN.WP without any discussion; BUT : If you are a simple user, please express your objection in the discussion page, don't act as a part&Judge. faitfully K71811418 (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC) ...

It's quite simple. Search results and self-published material is not allowed on article pages, although they can be discussed in order to find reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

attributing

Hello Arthur Rubin/Archive 2008,

I think we need to discuss the claim on the talk page, this is turning into edit warring, I'm afraid.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

survivor vs. victim

I'm conflicted about your insistence that "survivor" is POV with respect to the "child sexual abuse" article. I'm certain that I come from a biased point of view on this myself, and having worked with many survivors (in describing this in this note, I admit bias) of different forms of abuse I certainly am used to that language, which has those connotations.

And yet, I wonder if it is really so different than this?

"In collapsed buildings that did not catch fire, rescue teams searched the fallen buildings thoroughly, pulling out various survivors from underneath splintered wood and other debris.

(from the current edit of the article on the Loma Prieta earthquake.) Certainly "survivors" here expresses a point of view in addition to noting that it is talking about folks who remain alive after an event.)

Or this?

"Eliezer Wiesel on September 30, 1928)[1] is a Hungarian-French-Jewish novelist, political activist, Nobel Laureate and Holocaust survivor." (from Elie_Wiesel)

I don't believe either of those latter statements is particularly POV, I remain conflicted about the example in "Child Sexual Abuse" but actually don't have a fundamental argument why I'm conflicted about the first and clear on the second and third. It seems "victims who survived" would be a reasonable substitute in all three cases, and offer to *me* the same meaning that "survivor" does. Perhaps you could enlighten me in explaining (and I looked on the talk page, but didn't see your comment there), what your rationale is? --Joe Decker (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In the child abuse "field", "survivor" seems to be generally used as a buzz-word, leaving it ambiguous as to whether any abuse actually occured. "Victim" has no such confusion, but seems not to be generally accepted by social workers, as it presupposes the person is damaged beyond repair. Perhaps a neutral term can be found.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Tetration#Approaches to inverse functions

What is WRONG?

y = x^x

inverse is:

x = y^y

y = x^(1/y)

y = x^(1/x^(1/y))

…

y = x^(1/x^(1/x^(…)

y = x^(1/x)^(1/x)^(…)

y = x^(1/x)^^∞

y = (1/(1/x)) ^ (1/x)^^∞)

y = 1/(1/x)^(1/x)^^∞)

y = 1/(1/x)^^(∞+1)

y = 1/(1/x)^^ ∞.

Cʘʅʃʘɔ (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not exact in any sense, but it does seem to be correct, combining the last equation of #Extension to infinite heights with the representation of ssrt here. The domains of definition may be different, though. I think it's non-trivial enough to need a reference. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

3RR

3RR does not apply to vandalism, which to me would include the adding of a copyrighted image.--71.217.206.152 (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the adding a copyrighted image does not constitute vandalism, as a fair use claim was made by the uploader, and clarified by me. If you own the copyright of the image, you may request the WikiMedia Foundation remove it under the DMCA. Otherwise, only WP:BLP might make the image vandalism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I advise that both of you follow the dispute resolution page. Edit warring isn't going to solve this dispute, it'll only escalate it. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Block of L33t-Geek

You blocked L33t-Geek (talk · contribs) for abusing sockpuppet accounts. They are currently requesting an unblock. Since you did not say which account is the sock-master, it is hard to assess the evidence that this account is a sockpuppet of a blocked account. Could you provide evidence on that user's talk page or provide a link to the master account so that I may respond intelligently to his/her unblock request? Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Arthur Rubin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I realize WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for an unblock, but I was blocked, I believe, for edit warring on Kent Hovind, and the newly created account which was blocked for being created by a blocked IP (for edit warring there, an image, and a couple of user talk pages), was unblocked. I considered, and still consider, the edits to the image to be vandalism, and the removal of the image from the article to be minor vandalism, so it should not be subject to 3RR or other edit warring limitations, but should be reverted on sight. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The block appears to be based on you engaging in an edit war with an IP editor about whether an image should be included in an article.

Even though the IP appeared to be mistaken in labeling the image as copyvio - it is correctly tagged as fair use - this is, in substance, a content dispute, and not a matter of reverting vandalism. Per WP:VAND, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided. The charge that the image is in violation of copyright is unfounded, but it is not frivolous. The removal of the image, therefore, was not vandalism and your reversions were not exempt from the prohibition of edit warring.

In this situation, it would have been more appropriate to engage in dispute resolution instead of engaging in an edit war. While I would not have performed your block myself, it is not contrary to policy and I may not, therefore, unilaterally lift it. Please try to come to an understanding with the blocking admin via e-mail. — Sandstein (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Second amendment mediation

Just a heads up, a topic which you were involved in[14] is undergoing mediation, Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution, you may want to participate, or add to your watch list, etc.. In any case, I value your opinion on this. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Kent Hovind

How can you use anti-christian websites as reliable sources for an article about a christian, thos tags belong.--L33t-Geek (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. They're reliable as to his views. The video, unless you claim it's a fake, would be reliable even if on a specifically anti-Hovind web site. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizen of the several states

Hi, please comment. Cheers! bd2412 T 09:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Louis Bleriot 100th 2009

the Bleriot flight of July 25 1909 will be celebrated by most of Europe for it's 100th anniversay on July 25 2009. I dare say you are not privy to the history of Bleriot's crossing of the English Channel. If you would like some information on Bleriot's flight and it's ramification in the world let me know. Thanks. Kopimek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koplimek (talk • contribs) 14:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We need a a cite for present plans for the future celebration. I believe you, but Wikipedia doesn't run on belief, but on WP:RS. For what it's worth, I've be removing the tricentennial celebrations in 2076 from 2070s as well, please don't think I'm US-centric, although I am in the US. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

re:WP:Copyright

WRONG. The material may have been posted by the copyright holder

Your going to assume it is was may have been uploaded by him? It is long established that Google Videos illegally hosts copyrighted vidoes like YouTube, etc. From WP:Copyright:

However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work

You said it yourself, it may be this individual posting it himself, but do you have any kind of proof whatsoever that he even approved that video being there? Wikipedia has long considered it better to remove links to videos like this when in doubt, not to ignore it and hope that the copyright holder doesn't find out and complains. — Κaiba 15:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any proof evidence he didn't upload it himself. It's quite plausible that he would do so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. You have to have evidence that it isn't a copyright violation, not evidence that it isn't. So do you? Links to copyrighted videos from YouTube and Google Videos are removed all the time if we have no evidence that the copyright holder granted permission to use it. Google Videos violates copyrights, and the only way to link to copyrighted videos from there is if permission was given from the copyright holder. Again, Wikipedia removes links when in doubt, and we don't keep it if we have no evidence to prove it wasn't. Even if it is possible that he did it, do you have anything to suggest he did? If not, I am removing it again. — Κaiba 16:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Wikipedia does NOT remove links when in doubt, and there's no reason to remove this link, except google video seems to have already removed it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to message

It seems to be a bug in VP. I noticed someone else posted it on the bug tracker. Supposedly it's been fixed in 1.3.8. I haven't had a chance to try it yet. --Phoenix Hacker (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Decades

Hello! I see that you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Time. How do you think, can decade (0s) consist of nine years?! I suppose that it is nonsense and WP:CFORK. If this was a convention, can you indicate the source of that idea? Thanks.--ChroniclerSPb (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

dispute in psychohistory

Hi Arthur,

Although I have almost two years editing in WP I still have not used formally the dispute resolution process (I've only discussed a lot in talk pages though).

I've a question. I don't know how to deal with User:Ishmaelblues in psychohistory. The last couple of days I've tried many times to engage him in talk page but he only reverts without good reason (in his last post he only says that my removals of his blatant pov about a living person were "vandalism").

To boot, because of misspelling, one of his footnotes (I believe it's #26) has corrupted the page and he continues to revert even after I called his attention twice to this problem (so the article looks corrupted below that footnote).

Besides discussing in psychohistory talk page, I 'd like to know which is the second step in the dispute resolution process: to ask a third-party opinion? I already tried to communicate with User:Ishmaelblues in his user talk page as well, to no avail.

I know you are very busy in WP but I'd appreciate at least some of your attention in that article.

—Cesar Tort 20:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I patched the ref tag. As I'm going on a short Wikibreak this weekend (at least 10 am March 7 PST (UTC-8) through 5 pm March 10 PDT (UTC-7), with only occassional access, I can't really mediate at this time. If everything is as you say, an active editor will be needed. I'll look at it again when I get back. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! —Cesar Tort 22:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are back tomorrow, please just take a look at Talk:Psychohistory#Burden_of_evidence and give me your advice here, if you don't have time to engage with that editor. —Cesar Tort 23:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Hi you reverted me without discussion -see Homeopathy. Do you see it now?

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17429507-- Pharmacists should also be aware that the data assessing the efficacy of homeopathy are mixed—there are rigorous, reproducible studies that show homeopathy is effective,39,42-44 and equally scientifically sound studies that show it is not.270.107.246.88 (talk)

--70.107.246.88 (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see it. The paper has enough lies to consider the journal it appears in as non-reliable. Homeopathic "remedies" are not regulated as drugs in the US. They are even less regulated than dietary supplements. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Now we must agree right?--70.107.246.88 (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we must agree that you're banned from the article. I don't see what else we agree on. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are honnest with yourself you might choose to see it.Best. --70.107.246.88 (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Mihaela Mitrache article

Hi Arthur! This was my intention, to start translate the ro page. The Bucharest National Theatre is the most important Theatre in Romania, the best Romanian actors are playing on its stage; additionally, MM had roles in Romanian and co-production movies ("Milky - Way"), she also received nominations in some internaitonal movies. I hope that in a short while I will be able to fully translate the page, but as I am a new ocntributor to wikipedia, I might be somehow clumpsy in editing this article, so I would really appreciate any help. Thanx! (Ana-Maria Miron (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

Golden ratio

I don't see the need for the project. But I'm not participating, so I could be wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

On what basis? What's your relation with the topic? Phidias, Leonardo da Vinci and Le Corbusier (to mention a few), men that are among the most pivotal designers in history, saw the need to use it at least in their most prominent work. I can't see how a project to tie all the articles dedicated to the object of their studies is not necesary. Also: the designers of the pyramid of giza, of stonehenge, of notre dame, venus the milo, etc.--20-dude (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that you are a mathematisian or something, so I already figured you relation. The relevance of the golden ratio from the Math porin of view migh not be bigger than the relevance of π, perhaps is more trascendental from the designing point of view.--20-dude (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Arsenicum album

Hi there, Arthur. We may disagree on certain content, but I appreciator your rigor, and I appreciate fellow editors who are transparent. Cool. As for Arsenicum, my concern in one of my recent edits (that you UNDID) was that none of the references cited for the skepticism of homeopathy make reference to any of the research testing Arsenicum album. In other words, this article discusses several basic science and clinical trials that show positive effects from THIS homeopathic medicine, while the comment that you are seeking to protect is that overall skepticism for the broad field of homeopathy. How can we say this better than we do at present?

On a second subject, I noticed that you stated above that homeopathic medicines are not regulated as "drugs." Actually, this is not true. In the U.S., they are regulated as drugs, primarily as "over-the-counter drugs." And just so that you will know, American manufacturers of homeopathic medicines are regularly visited by representatives of the FDA (unannounced). As for labelling issues, no homeopathic medicine can be labeled for the treatment of any condition other than an "OTC ailment," that is, one that is self-limited, that doesn't require medical diagnosis, and that doesn't require medical monitoring. DanaUllman^Talk 00:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to my latest reversion on AA, I think "homeopathy is not considered effective medicine" is more accurate than "... remains skeptical of homeopathic medicine", as well as more accurately reflecting the sources.

On the second subject, I thought over-the-counter drugs required proof of safety (OK, I'll grant that), and evidence of effectiveness for some condition. If I'm wrong, I apologize. It should also be noted that, in a now-long-archived revision of one of the relevant talk pages, it was noted that one "manufacturer" of homeopathic medications was just shaking the diluent. No one noticed until they admitted it. Unfortunately, I don't remember the nationality of the manufacturer. If it was American, that suggests that FDA visits are not as frequent as required. But, I suppose, the same could be said for prescription medications.

As a further aside, I have doubts that acetaminophen should be an over-the-counter drug, as the ratio between the recommended dose and the probably harmful dose is only a factor of 2, according to our article. (I thought it was 4. Learn something new every day.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Legally (in the U.S.), homeopathic medicines are primarily OTC drugs (there are, however, some homeopathic medicines, even in high potencies, to be Rx drugs because they are only used to treat people with serious and/or chronic illness, thereby having no indications for the treatment of self-limiting conditions). The Food Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938 gave homeopathic medicines their legal recognition, and later (around 1968), they were deemed OTC drugs. The "Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the US" is recognized by the FDA as an official compendium of drugs, and certain homeopathic texts (called "materia medica") are recognized by the FDA as having reliable information in them that allows drug manufacturers to market homeopathic ingredients for those OTC indications that these ingredients are known to cause. I have followed historical and present-day legal proceedings against homeopathic manufacturers, and I have never heard of the case you cite above, though, as always, I am open to be educated. If you ever find out details, I'd like to hear about it. I know one leading skeptic of homeopathy who likes to make reference to a homeopathic manufacturer who at least once was found to put conventional drugs in his homeopathic medicines, but he tends to forget mentioning that this single occurrence happened in Pakistan in the 1970s.

As for Arsenicum album, my point is that the "scientific community" may be skeptical of homeopathy, but I do not know of specific skepticism of homeopathic Arsenicum album. Because this article shows that there are several animal and human trials published in reliable sources, we need to add something more to what is presently written. DanaUllman^Talk 04:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for your comments on the Bilingual Education page

There is a discussion on your two reverts of information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bilingual_education#Reversion_of_material_twice_on_page abuse t (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

SRA

Hi Arthur,

Biao has just reverted again in Satanic ritual abuse. I will soon unwatch this article since I am pretty busy. Anyway, thanks for your work in that page.

Cesar Tort 22:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Accidental mistake in Homeopathic Arsenicum

Arthur...slow down, you move too fast. I AGF, but please note you got confused between Linde's writings in 2005 about his meta-analysis about clinical research that was published in the Lancet in 1997. He did NOT write about the meta-analysis he and others did in 1994 on environmental toxicology. Heck, we all make mistakes. That said, you need to read (or re-read what Linde wrote in 2005 about his clinical meta-analysis because you and some other editors tend to either mis-quote it or not describe it accurately. DanaUllman^Talk 05:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Labor Day

I've responded to your revert here. Cheers, Murderbike (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. β^_command 14:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of my talk page noted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Arthur. I'm going state this very simply, so I hope you take it to heart. I came here to talk to you about your deletion of Beta's opt-out list. I see Beta has jokingly put a template on your talk page. Heh. Your deletion of his page was an abuse of your admin tools. So, if I were you, I wouldn't be calling his template on your talk page vandalism. Doing so is hypocritical and also will to draw more attention to your abuse of your tools, which is a much bigger deal. And it seems obvious to me he was just being funny while being informative, as he did in fact revert your edits which could be viewed as administrative vandalism. And, just as a little extra justification, how about we just say Beta dropped the template per IAR. Set the example. :) Lara❤Love 15:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. That page, together with assertion that this is an attempt to meet {{bot}} guidelines, is a policy violation, whether or not it's a template. I won't wheel-war, but I'll pursue deletion procedures. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not stated as an attempt to meet the bot guideline. That's an optional guideline that he's already stated repeatedly he will not comply with. And WHAT POLICY? You can't just say "it violates policy". You have two MFDs and you, an admin, can't even grasp the fact that you need to cite the violated policy. You've been blocked three times this year for edit warring (and we're only 2 and a half months in) and you've abused your admin powers in all this BC mess. You need to reevaluate your position in all of this. And you need to back away from the admin tools while you do it. Lara❤Love 17:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It was asserted that it is a credible alternative to {{bot}}. That assertion is just incredible and unconscionable. WP:NOT#CENSORED. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, Arthur, I was just popping by here, from the MfD, to ask you about the same as Lara just had (re: what policy?). I think I see what you're trying to get at now, but, I thought I'd mention something. {{nobots}}/{{bots}} isn't a policy, nor a guideline. They're just templates. Templates that most bots don't even pay any attention to at all. Anyhow, have a nice day, SQL^{Query me!} 18:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What does NOT#CENSORED have to do with anything? Are you serious? We ask for a policy and you just pull out a random one that in no way even remotely applies? It was asserted to be the sole alternative. If you don't like it, it doesn't really matter, as he's not required to provide a community approved opt-out. In fact, he's not required to provide any opt-out. Lara❤Love 18:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's unconscionable to request that an editor not complain about the bot in order to not receive messages from it. Discrediting or refusing to accept complaints about specfic bot actions of which the user declined notfication is questionable, but within the bounds of common sense. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

How are you possibly an admin when you don't even know policy? You're deleting pages per IAR, citing the wrong criteria, in a rogue fashion. You're warning users for violating policies that they're not breaking. Granted your block log is proof you don't understand WP:3RR but this is your final warning to stop using your admin tools (including warning others) in this matter because you clearly don't have a grasp on it. And further abuse and I'll be bringing your actions to the attention of the community for greater scrutiny. Lara❤Love 18:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I deleted a proposal which would be a clear violation of policy and law, if left intact. WP:IAR is made exactly for this sort of problem, although I should have marked it as proposal and protected the text {{proposal}}, and left the rest open. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Two things, then I'm off to AN/I and will no longer discuss this with you. You have yet to name what policy it violates, even in the MFD and now you're saying it breaks a law? You've lost me. I am utterly without response to that. Lara❤Love 19:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive administrative action.

Hello, Arthur.

I'm sorry, but I feel obliged to block you until your actions have been given scrutiny by a wider community of administrators. You have been using your admin tools in an obvious dispute with an editor, and without support of policy or even guidelines to back them up.

At this point, I feel that you are disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point, and what's worse, misusing the tools the community have trusted you with to do so.

Please keep an eye on AN/I; I will gladly forward any notice you leave on your talk page for that purpose to the thread where your recent behavior will be discussed so that you make make a case. — Coren ^(talk) 19:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|what admin tools have I used? Rollback is no longer an admin tool.}}

deletion. — Coren ^(talk) 19:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is very bad form for the blocking admin to handle the unblock request. Coren we need evidence A.S.A.P. on the AN/I as to why you chose to block here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I mostly meant to answer a direct question. Faux pas fixed. — Coren ^(talk) 19:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|My actions were not disruptive (any more than the unconscionable "contract"), nor were they intended as a WP:POINT. I should have added {{proposal}} and MfD'd, rather than deleting under a speedy, but "content harmful to Wikipedia" seems to fit if allowed as a page for signatures. See below for a comment to be forwarded to the AN/I thread.}} — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have deactivated this request - it looks like you are unblocked and presumably you are not affected by an autoblock since you are an admin. --B (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment for AN/I page.

Just checking the edit history of the MfD. User:Carcharoth explained a policy violation there (diff). If I'd thought of that, I would have said it, but I could just see that it's an unconscionable and possibly illegal "contract". Copying, as well as producing the diff.

Quoting from this page version (the text has since been removed): "Keep in mind that when you sign this list, you fully are aware that you lose the right to [...] You also lose the right to complain about the bots themselves or the issues they raise." - here the generalised (not the specific) right to complain is not something that can be signed away. We can have a semantic argument over whether we mean complain or criticise, but Wikipedia is a co-operative and collaborative editing environment. Wording such as this, however "voluntary" it is, does not contribute to a collaborative editing environment, because it restricts the possibilities for discussing the bots and what they do. It promotes an environment where bot operators WP:OWN the bots, and contravenes the third of the m:foundation issues: "the wiki process" (we write articles and change community processes by discussion, not by fiat). To sum up: even in principle, people shouldn't be allowed to sign away their rights to make valid comments and criticisms, of a bot or anything (even if that gets labelled as "complaining"). They certainly shouldn't have such rights held to ransom over an opt-out process. Carcharoth (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, although I have separate disputes with beta and the bots ("beta and the bots" would be a good name for a rock band), the number of editors who do not have a dispute with beta is small enough that when I see a clear policy violation by beta, I don't see any reason not to note it.

Furthermore, I'm not the only one who removed the content from Beta's user page. Apparently someone signed it, then read the page and also found it unconscionable. Please specifically notify User:Obuibo Mbstpo as well as User:Carcharoth of the AN/I thread. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to be unblocked right away by the blocking admin. There is no urgency here and you should be able to adit the AN/I Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, I think you're probably going to be unblocked soon. However, it could be helpful to ease the wikidrama if you were to indicate that you won't use the tools in relation to this dispute until this is sorted out. Only a suggestion. For what's it worth, I think you should be unblocked. Addhoc (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite all right. I have no intention of using the admin tools in regard the subpages, nor will I edit Beta's subpage until the MfD is resolved. ZScout seemed interested in finding a reasonable phrasing, so I don't think there's a problem there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually you were unblocked 10 mins ago by another admin. I strongly suggest however that you do not ever threaten to block someone you are in a dispute with again. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

2008

We're not 100% certain, that the USA in November 4th, 2008, will elect the 44th President. Bush could die, resign be removed from office, before his term expires. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

Something doesn't seem correct in the grammar of this sentence. Can you please provide me with a link or a source so I can verify the information. That is why I added the [sic] and citation required. If there is no proper reference for this information I believe it should be removed per wikipedia's policy. I'm posting a copy of this message on the discussion page of the related article. (Please see the related related changes you made here). --CyclePat (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have named you as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#9/11 conspiracy theories. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Evangelion franchise article

Was the "wildly successful" part the only thing that warranted the weasel words template, or did you see other phrases that merit attention? I'm just trying to get an idea of how much work needs to be done before I start editing. Thanks! Willbyr (talk | contribs) 23:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's just what caught my eye. I was reading 2016 for the fictional reference to the TV series, and managed to confirm it in the list of episodes.

I'd say the entire lead paragraph starting "The TV Series", and much of the #Other Media section resembles pavo plumage. I haven't checked the other articles in the franchise.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you read the reference in the very sentence you are objecting to? --Gwern (contribs) 17:47 19 March 2008 (GMT)

Honestly, unless the phrase "wildly beyond expectation" is part of a quote from the book, it does sound a little flowerly. If some text from the book can be included in the ref, this will help a lot. I also took a stab at a rewrite on the Other Media section. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 19:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

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/September 11 conspiracy theories/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK § 19:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of cited material from world health organization

Why are you deleting cited material from the world health organization on chiropractics? those edits were newtral and no undue weight. This is a fallacious edit. I will report you to admins if you abuse any more! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.25.184.27 (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You are reverting a fully cited material from world health organization despite agreement on chiropractics talk page. Please do not delete cited material from newtral, notable and verifiable sources like w.h.o. Thanks. 64.25.184.27 (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the Quack that it's WP:UNDUE weight. But you're at 6RR, so you need to wait for someone else to agree with you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Quack guru agrees with the edits on chiropractic talk. you are deleting fully referenced material this is newtral. no one has said undue weight, different sections were edited and referenced from world health organization and textbooks. these are verifiable, notable, reliable and are good edits. 64.25.184.27 (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did Quack revert you, then. In any case, I'll have to leave it for a newtral neutral admin, as I can't give you the block you deserve for 7RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

False Allegations

Arthur,

Do not accuse me of sockpuppetry again. I have not ever done so and to imply this is slander. I will not tell you again. Stop. EBDCM (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you be indef-blocked again under WP:LEGAL. It's not slander. If false and actionable it would be libel, but it's an "as reported to me". A look back at your talk page suggests that you've even written comments there under a 208. IP address. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have already discussed the 208 IP which is what happens when my account times out. Also, I have already told this to anyone and it's there for everyone to see. Then it is libel, whatever term you want to use. It's wrong and I'll ask that you retract your statement. EBDCM (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I was responded to your inquiries and would appreciate that you desist making any more untrue statements about my character. Have a good one. EBDCM (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sex crimes - can you help?

Sorry! I may have messed up what you were doing. I am trying to fine a way that Category:Sex crimes does not double list Category:Child abuse. Now Category:Child abuse shows up twice under Category:Sex crimes, once on in its own independent category and once nested under Category:Sexual abuse -- if you click it you will see. How to fix this? Any suggestions? Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 17:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't mess it up this time. User:Jack-A-Roe did. I'm contacting him, too. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! This category stuff is really tricky! Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 18:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Georgian Religion

Hey, I was wondering if I could get your help with some articles involving Georgia and religion. I believe there are a few Georgian nationalists who are suppressing all mention of religious animosity in Georgia and try to pass it off as a haven of Free Religion. I have found significant references from sources such as the New York Times that corroborate stories of mob violence against Protestants in the country, and have added a paragraph to the Georgia article's Religion section. Such a paragraph has been previously removed, and the other articles about Georgian religion need to be updated to reflect the paragraph in the Georgia article. I don't have the time to significantly update and do detailed research of such oppression, or combat nationalists seeking to have their country viewed as great and spotless. Can you give me a hand here? Thanks for your time --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Update The situation seems to be resolved. A major editor of Georgian related articles is now assisting me. Related articles may still need to be updated and research might need to be done, but he will likely take care of it aswell as ensure vandalism does not occur. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Eric Lerner

I have full-protected the Eric Lerner article for one week or until you guys can settle this on the article's talk page. Blueboy96 20:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I don't think the information MUST remain, but I think it should, and can wait for a more credible source. That propaganda site is probably reliable in context with Eric, though, as it's only defamatory to LaRouche. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sub-Plank

So the discussion on deletion of Sub-Planck cannot be reopened? --Dr.enh (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sub-Planck is a good article: how to restore?

I have a Ph.D. in particle physics, and everything Physicman123 said is true. He has two relevant, peer-reviewed sources in Phys. Rev. Lett. Sub-Planck is a distinct topic from the Planck Scale. No particle physicist would disagree with his list of schools of thought.

Yes, it would be nice if he had put in some footnoted references. No, I am not going to put in footnoted references because I no longer have free access to the journals he referenced.

Overall, the Sub-Planck article is of better quality than the Planck Scale article to which it was pointing. The theoretical ideas section of the Planck Scale article has numerous unreferenced, highly speculative questions in an unenclyopedic form.

If you are going to get rid of Sub-Planck again, then the Planck Scale article should go to. But I think that both articles, depsite their unclear referencing, are helpful to beginners and laymen in particle physics.

How do I re-open the discussion on the deletion of Sub-Planck?

--Dr.enh (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The place to reopen it would be at Wikipedia:Deletion review, but, the suggestion was that all sourced material could be added to Planck scale. Now most of the material added had no source whatsoever, or is non-peer-reviewed speculation, but that would be the appropriate action. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sea Otter

I know the difference with the its and it is but on the Sea Otter page after all the it`s were changed back to its you guys changed also changed the its that WERE showing ownership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentburple (talk • contribs) 18:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Days of the year guideline

As a frequent contributor (or vandal patroller) to the days of the year articles (WP:DAYS), your comments on the current state of the proposed guideline for that project would be greatly appreciated. Discussion is taking place here. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 19:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

sorry

lol, sorry, i got a bit carried away. --Striver - talk 20:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

... thus outside the RfA

I should point out that I wasn't involved in the dispute, which makes all the difference. *sigh* This should not have happened, and as I had made clear on the AN/I thread, I would have unblocked you as soon as things settled down or you made assurances that you wouldn't use your tools until it did. I have absolutely nothing against you, nor do I have anything at stake in the whole BC mess.

Personally, I consider the matter entirely settled and water under the bridge, and I hope you feel the same. — Coren ^(talk) 00:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in that dispute with beta, either. I was involved in disputes with beta, but, on that one, I can't see it as a content dispute.

I consider the matter settled, except as it shows there are policy/guideline questions which may require clarification. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!  :-) You'll get no argument from me that "require clarification" is pretty much the default state of many policies and guidelines. — Coren ^(talk) 15:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electro-magnetic therapeutic system

I have apparently contradicted most, if not all of your statement at this deletion process. Would you please reconsider your vote. thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Block of user:Earth is over

Doesn't WP:AIV require that warnings escalate to Level 4 before a block is issued? I was surprised to see that you issued a block after only a Level 2 warning. Wdfarmer (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I've just read WP:BLOCK and I see that personal attacks allow a block without those additional warnings. Wdfarmer (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

ACTUALLY I am the sole contributor

Actually.... I am the sole contributor. The people that edited this article only added PROD, DELETE, AND SPEEDY.... That is administrative content and is nothing to do with the article. If you disagree I urge you to please bring this up to the ANI board. After all, you wanted to SPEEDY it youself. --CyclePat (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have mentioned your name at WP:ANI. here regarding this conflict. --CyclePat (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If you were to request deletion/userfication either by a {{db-author}} or by noting it on the AfD page, it would probably be done, but not by me. But moving the article while under consideration of AfD is seriously inappropriate. 22:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

My commments on ANI. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, I'm sorry about the disagreement we are having and the edit conflict we just had regard this article. I've asked on WP:ANI that the article be fully protect until we can determine who the main author is. Thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Light brown apple moth controversy

I see that you reverted a series of edits made by an anonymous editor. They did not seem unreasonable, and some of them were sourced. Can you share your reasoning? An explanatory edit summary would have been nice. Thanks. —johndburger 02:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Some of the 14 may be reasonable, but he anon continually edits the same articles, and his edits to Template:911tm are clear vandalism. It's a matter of "guilt by association" -- if the edits in articles I monitor are clear vandalism, it's not unreasonable to assume his other edits are. Please feel free to revert if you're willing to reaffirm them. Some of them do seem unsourced WP:BLP violations, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Tax protester (United States)

Good call, regarding your addition of the tag. I've been pondering that edit, trying to figure out whether the verbiage should be left alone, tagged, or deleted -- even though I believe it's a good faith edit and a correct statement. Famspear (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

a question

Hi Arthur,

One of the weakness I've found in Wikipedia is how to deal with the pov pushers.

I wrote an extensive criticism section in Psychohistory. However, another editor has inserted his POV. I have tried to explain him the reasons a section is still POV and factually inaccurate. I asked not to remove the tag while we are discussing. He continues to do so. If I revert, he'll revert. I don't know what to do. Please keep in mind that I added most of the criticism section in that article. However, it is different from POV, flawed criticism. To avoid an edit war I am supposed to ask for a third opinion. What would you recommend. I only want the tag in that section until differences are ironed out.

Thanks in advance for your advice.

—Cesar Tort 01:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You did not add most of the criticism and if you did would the bit i add be this much of a disturbance? Everything i have added is all sourced (some many times over thanks to cesar constantly looking for something to revert, and he still has not, this says something), all by college professors and other notable doctors including Barzun. How to deal with me Cesr? Talk to me, as far as i know i have resolved all the issues you put on the talk page i removed the tag and you added back because you plan to find something else wrong about it in the future? that makes no sense and you can see his pov because of this. So if you want to deal with me talk to me. Sorry to use your board Arthur Rubin, thankyou.Ishmaelblues (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You did not resolve the issues he put on the article talk page. Perhaps it should be downgraded to {{pov-section}}, as I don't see a clear factual dispute any more, but Cesar says there's a dispute, and the POV question which Cesar brought up has clearly not been resolved. The tag should remain if there is still a dispute and editing is occuring. If you had dealt with all his objections to your satisfaction and the article had been stable for some time, then the tag could possibly be removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion, of course, belongs in talk:psychohistory. I just want to respond here to: "You did not add most of the criticism". If you see the history of the page, Ishmaelblues, you'll know that, after user:Slrubenstein asked me to take into serious consideration his criticism of the article, I wrote for the enemy. Yes: starting the criticism section was my idea and I added the material Slrubenstein called my attention to. On the other hand, I dispute the material you added, and gave my reasons there. But as I said, from now on I will discuss in that page instead of doing it here. —Cesar Tort 19:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblock BongGone

I mistook that Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs) reverted "BongGone"'s previous edit, so I thought that the block on {{User|BongGone]] by Furt.Perf was valid per the new rule. In turn, the violator on the naming order is Sennen goroshi. He made others and me believe that his revert is legitimate as leaving confusing edit comment. Sennen goroshi's revert has nothing to do with BongGone or other's previous edit and "the rule". He actually reverted Furf.Perf's revision, so Sennen is the one who should be blamed for the violation on the naming rule. BongGone only restored his lame revert "per rule".

• 2008-03-01T02:53:37 by BongGone
• 2008-03-07T14:18:01 by Kusunose
• 2008-03-07T14:48:38 by BongGone
• 2008-03-07T16:58:25 by Kusunose

• 2008-03-31T17:15:22 by Sennen goroshi
• 2008-04-03T16:01:40 by BongGone

Therefore, I believe the admin blocked the wrong guy instead of Sennen goroshi. The admin does not seem to be active now, so I come to bring a unblock request. Thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

the rule on that article is that no user may revert the naming order more than once. I reverted the naming order once, bonggone reverted it at least three times. The rules were clear. I followed them, and when my edit was reverted, I made no attempt to edit the naming order again, as per the guidelines. BongGone made edits based on reversing the naming order on three occasions, I see no need to remove his block. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

BongGone restored your edit once today because you violated the naming rule! Your switching from Dokdo/Takeshima to Takeshima/Dokdo is not surely preceded after consecus and discussion. You did not follow any guideline. Then your wrong edit summary misled people and he was blocked instead of you! Certainly, Sennen goroshi should be on the charge that fix the disruption by Sennen. --Appletrees (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Management Mission

I Have seen that you referted the last edit made to the management article, see here. I already started a discussion about this on Talk:Management#How to described the mission, because I my opinion that change wasn't that bad. Could you give a responce over there. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Jin Shin Jyutsu

My apologies for not understanding how to work the Wikipedia system properly.

I did put in an article, how ever since it was also deleted, I was simply attempting to get the information into it's correct location. I included the website as a reference as well, so that all information could be verified.

If you still have the article on file, please let me know, as I would appreciate having it so that the article itself can be put in the appropriate section.

Thankyou, Riversinger, CMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by RiversongCMT (talk • contribs) 14:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Your article was deleted as being a copyright violation of http://www.jinshinjyutsu.com/ . If that's not the case, or if the web page has sufficient waiver of copyright to meet our copyright requirements, please request deletion review or let me know. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Further to this, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The full remedy is located here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 15:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Arthur, I noted your WP:AE report of today and have begun investigating. For part of it, I think you were astute in this comment of March 25th - so far as I can tell, in Icke's article the bit about 9/11 is not well sourced. You might want to improve the sourcing; the issue seems to be his book # Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster, UK, Bridge of Love Publications, 2002. ISBN 0953881024, which I spotted from this source(?) which includes a longer title. Can you fix this sourcing while I keep looking at the WP:AE report? GRBerry 19:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I appreaciate the heads up. Unfortunately, we need to source all three of the items he allegedly attributes to reptillians, and I don't think they can all be sourced to that book. I'll see what I can do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Time Times (2008-03)

	Time Times
Issue One • March 2008 • About the Newsletter Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier
News Recent Project News Time Times I, Zginder, have started this the official newsletter of the project. This newsletter is part of the Time Times, which has been created to update our members on the latest news at the project and on time. This first posting is late because I did not even come up with the idea until 2008-03-08. In the future I plan to have it ready to publish before the month begins. (If anyone should do things on time on Wikipedia it should be us, no?) Article count over 800! By my count we now have 873 articles but, will have many more soon. Less than 200 are assessed though, plenty of work for us to do. Portal:Time now working thanks to Yamara. Project member count reaches 11 members! Keep inviting all your WikiFriends. Remember: The project is now accessible from new shortcuts, WP:TIME and WP:TIMEPRO. Project gets a new look thanks to Yamara, if you have not seen it yet stop on by. Recent Time News The last day of February was leap day. Lets make this article featured before the next one comes around on 2012-02-29. Daylight saving time is in effect in the United States and a few other counties as of 2008-03-09. This article is our only featured article.
Archives • Newsroom
If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If you had read the talk page before reverting...

If you had read the talk page before reverting, you would have figured out that we had reached consensus not to split that infinitive. Would you self-revert, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowest (talk • contribs) 15:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Time Times (2008-04)

	Time Times
Issue Two • April 2008 • About the Newsletter Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier
News Recent Project News Article count on at 961! We now have 961 articles but, will have many more soon as only a few are marked as in our project. At least 803 are unassessed though, plenty of work for us to do. Project member count reaches 12 members! Keep inviting all your WikiFriends. Award offered—Since 2008-01-05, Sharkface217 has offered a Barnstar to the editor who can expand the article Timeline. It certainly needs it, now that it has been disambiguated from Chronology: Go to the Timeline listing on the Awards page to find out Sharkface's minimum requirements! From the Time Portal An IP added this funny comment to Portal talk:Time "I never though I would see the day mankind succeeds in creating a time portal." Recent Time News From the leap second article: in April 2008: ITU Working Party 7A will submit to ITU Study Group 7 project recommendation on stopping leap second[s]. Calendars met on March 21. It was Good Friday (Western Christianity, 2008); Purim ends at sundown (Judaism, 2008); Naw-Rúz in the Bahá'í calendar, Benito Juárez Day in Mexico, World Poetry Day.
Archives • Newsroom
If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

3O

Hi Arthur,

I noticed you posted a 3O and signed with four ~. 3O procedure is to use 5, timestamp only, so there's no bias based on the editor requesting (that's the theory). I've removed your name, hope you don't mind. WLU (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OOPS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted bit on the 9/11 article

Hi, you deleted my link to Alexander Litvinenko on the grounds that he wasn't related to al-Qaeda. However, one of his very public accusations was that Ayman al-Zawahiri was trained by the FSB in Dagestan in late 1996 till early 1997, and was "an old agent of the FSB." According to the main 9/11 article before I made any modifications, the famous 1998 fatwa by bin Laden, al-Zawahi, and and some others was issued less than a year after al-Zawahiri left Russian custody (in jail say the FSB and al-Zawahiri, being trained by the FSB says Litvinenko and at least one other former FSB agent). The fatwa redirected the focus of Islamic terrorism (bin Laden's al-Qaeda merged with al-Zawahiri's Egyptian Jihad, both terrorism powerhouses) not just towards the West (which had already been happening), but more importantly towards Western citizens in their own country. In The Looming Tower, the author pointed to al-Zawahiri of the author of the fatwa. The 1993 WTC bombing was the first instance of this strategy in the US (I think?), but 9/11 was obviously the most noteworthy. Before, the attacks were directed at American military or diplomatic installations, but after the fatwa, civilians became fair game. Al-Zawahiri, though not often discussed, is widely acknowledged by the media as the number 2 in al-Qaeda. However, Hamid Mir (bin Laden's self-chosen biographer) said once that believes that al-Zawahiri was really in charge, both in the public relations and logistics of al-Qaeda. From what I understand, Litvinenko alleged that al-Zawahiri was trained by the FSB, and another former FSB agent says that Litvinenko himself was in charge of facilitating al-Zawahiri's entrance into Russia. On the basis of this, I think Litvinenko is relevant to anything related to al-Qaeda after the issuance of the 1998 fatwa – his accusations are too serious not to note, especially given that he accurately predicted that the consequence of defection and publicly making these allegations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssmith619 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy

An Arbitration case in which you commented 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/Homeopathy/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/Homeopathy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Logic Programming and the Arbcom restriction

Hello Arthur. My semi protection of this article has just expired. There has been a new IP edit that seems to add a reference to Hewitt's work. Do you think this edit violates any Arbcom restriction? If so, you could revert this change. I don't believe I should edit the article if I may need to protect it again. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless constraint logic programming is Hewitt's concept alone, it seems a reasonable edit, which, in addition, adds a Hewitt reference. I'll have to investigate further. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

You reverted without talk page discussion and edit summaries are not supposed to be used as a substitute. My addition to the talk pages relating to this matter is at Talk:Homeopathy#Homeopathy is and isn't implausible. My point, if it is not clear, relates to the matter of "scientific principles". If Whorton is being used to support the case that homeopathy does not conform to mainstream principles then his overall conclusion needs stating too. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

asking for advice

Hi Arthur,

I am still having trouble with the same editor in psychohistory.

Which is the next step? To ask for a third opinion? Leave a message in the mediation boards? I doubt that this dispute can be solved without some sort of mediation.

Which board or admin or regular editor would you recommend for a third opinion?

Glad to see you back,

Cesar Tort 04:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Britney Spears

ok, sorry :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by XCheese360 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

....interesting, I thought I did sign that last message, but I obviously didn't.--XCheese360 (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi,

I'm a fellow member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Time and have made a fair amount of contributions lately--enough, at least, that I suspect that I (and the articles I edit) could benefit from Rollback privileges. Would you be willing to grant me these?

Thanks, Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please be careful, as I've been warned for improper use of rollback, myself. (Note that the guideline as to what proper use is has been tagged "historical", so I can't tell you what the consensus is.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate it, and I'll be careful. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

War Resister

Hello Arthur, I added the term War Resister to the article not to make any kind of political point of my own about war and its viability, but because this is a commonly used term (google it and see) analogous to Draft Dodger which is in common usage in Canada. Please consider re-adding it to the article. Thank you.Kootenayvolcano (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The first few Google references seem to be general opposition to (a) war, and some deserters. I really don't see it.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Dwyer (professor)

This AfD has recently been closed by an admin as "no consensus", defaulting to keep. This decision has been taked to a deletion review, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 27#John Dwyer (professor). Since you initiated the original AfD, you may want to comment in the deletion review discussion. Nsk92 (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sea Otter

May I please ask you why you deleted rare and the only image at Wikipedia, which shows the behavior, which is described in the article. If you want to remove this image, please discuss it at talk page of the article. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not rare.... I suppose it's more-or-less reasonable, but the article is getting inundated with pictures. Perhaps you should remove Image:Sea_otter_with_sea_urchin.jpg. Its caption does not support existing text in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

May I please ask how many times you've seen a sea otter using a rock to break a shell or to kill a prey, or just a sea otter with a rock? Have you taken any pictures so far? Have you seen any picture of that kind of behavior at Wikipedia, or maybe at Flickr? The caption could be changed. The image you pointed out to is a very good high quality image and I wish I took it, but it is not mine image and usually I do not remove such good images from the articles, if they were not taken by me. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said, that picture supports only its caption, not anything else in the article, so it shouldn't be there. Neither picture is rare, but there are few pictures released with a license we can use.

As an aside, there should be a way to get pictures closer to the article text they support. You're about 3 paragraphs up on my screen. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, thank you for the response. I personally like the image of sea otter with a sea urchin much better than the top low resolution image of the article. The caption of the image claims that it is of sea otter with a pup, but pup is hard to impossible to see. I even believe that this image of mine might be better than a current top image. Anyway, as I said, I just wanted to let you know my opinion and now you could remove any image you wish including the one with the rock from the article . I care no more. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, I think an edit summary on your part would have led to less stress all around. This isn't a great way to use the rollback button. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That memory leak

From your post on AN which I hadn't seen until now, it seems we're in agreement that Wikipedia makes Firefox leak memory? What can be done about it? What Firefox are you using? The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Time Times (2008-05)

	Time Times
Issue Three • May 2008 • About the Newsletter Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier
News Recent Project News Article count at 1074! At least 911 are unassessed though, plenty of work for us to do. Award offered—Since 2008-01-05, Sharkface217 has offered a Barnstar to the editor who can expand the article Timeline. It certainly needs it, now that it has been disambiguated from Chronology: Go to the Timeline listing on the Awards page to find out Sharkface's minimum requirements! From the Time Portal History of timekeeping devices reaches Good Article Status —On April 7 the history of time keeping article became a GA. This is our only top importance article to reach this prestigious status. This was only possible with the dedication of the Tzatziki Squad. They are continuing to work on the article to reach Feature Article status. History of timekeeping devices in Egypt was a DYK —The article appeared on the Main Page on April 8. With this text: "...that despite Herodotus's claim that the sundial was invented in Babylon, the oldest known example is from Egypt?" This also was only possible thanks to the Tzatziki Squad. Recent Time News None that I know of.
Archives • Newsroom
If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for removing your ref fix

[15] I didn't see it. Cheers, silly rabbit (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I've done things like that before. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello friend

Hello friend, haven't seen you around the Quatloos web site lately. I post in the tax protester forum over there fairly often now.

I noticed that you deleted some of the ranting by user "BobHurt" (or "Bobhurt" - he uses two different accounts) that I had dealt with on the talk page for Income tax. And now Bob has been blocked from editing for a while. Curiously, an anonymous user (users?) seems to have been following him around in Wikipedia lately, pointing out his, um, "activities." Bob shows up here about once or twice a year and tries to debate with me on his tax protester arguments, or he rails about the putatively "corrupt" judicial system, and so on. For some reason he cannot release himself from the idea that I am from Dallas (I'm not).

Anyway, I hope things are well with you. Famspear (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Morgellons

Hi Arthur,

Would you mind adding some explanation of the revert of my edit to the talk page? Also, do you think putting an RfC tag in the NPOV tag section would be a good idea to get more input? Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

2008 and GTA IV

Hi regarding the 2008 article, the 2008 game GTA IV is set in 2008 so therefore it is not vandlism. If you want i will provide links to other wikipedia articles stating the year as 2008

Liberty_City_(Grand_Theft_Auto)#Grand_Theft_Auto_IV_rendition
Niko_Bellic
Pathfinder2006 (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your comments

See my talk page for a reply. Marcus22 (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Linear regression

I was surprised by your edit to linear regression with its edits summary that was so emphatic about PROPER explanation of linearity. I was concerned that some of your words might be misunderstood as meaning that polynomial regression is not an instance of linear regression, and then I came to your assertion that if one column of the design matrix X contains the logarithms of the corresponding entries of another column, that makes the regression nonlinear (presumably because the log function is nonlinear). That is grossly wrong and I reverted. Notice that the probability distributions of the least-squares estimators of the coefficients can be found simply by using the fact that they depend linearly on the vector of errors (at least if the error vector is multivariate normal). Nonlinearity of the dependence of one column of the matrix X upon the other columns does not change that at all, since the model attributes no randomness to the entries in X. Nonlinear regression, on the other hand, is quite a different thing from that. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Both versions are completely wrong, I'm afraid. I just thought the version I reverted to was closer to reality than the anti-matrix warrior's version. I'll have to make a more detailed study of the two versions and construct one that resembles reality. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So what is it you think is wrong with the version that gives the following model?

$Y=X\beta +\varepsilon \,$

where

• X is a nonrandom and observable n × p matrix;
• β is a nonrandom and unobservable p × 1 vector, to be estimated based on the data, using least squares;
• ε is a random and unobservable n × 1 vector of errors;
• Y is a random and observable n × 1 vector.

That is what is usually called linear regression. The fact that one column of X depends in a nonlinear way on another doesn't change that. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've put in the following language:

If there is any linear dependence amongst the columns of X, then the coefficients β cannot be estimated by least squares unless β is constrained, as, for example, by requiring the sum of some of its components to be 0. However, some linear combinations of the components of β may still be uniquely estimable in such cases.

Michael Hardy (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:CorticoSpinal

Wow and double wow! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not my place to bring it up. If someone wants to lobby AN/I for an indefinite ban, continuing the indefinite ban of his predecessor account, I certainly wouldn't object. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation

FYI, a claim has been made that you support moving interpretation (logic) to mathematical model. I find this hard to believe. If true, I have to assume that you misspoke, since the article "mathematical model" is about the applied math topic, as in we need to create a model of this or that mechanical system in order to build it, type of thing - as opposed to models in model theory and logic. Of course both topics involve, ahem, "interpretations" and so forth - though, again, with different meanings. Tparameter (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What I said was that a merge of model (abstract) to mathematical model mode more sense than Greg's move of that article to formal interpretation. (Greg is good at misinterpreting apparently unambiguous statements. Perhaps someone merged my comment into a different talk page as Greg rewrote and repurposed the interpretation articles? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I figured as much. Normally I would defer to your expertise or assume your were misquoted in a case like this. Tparameter (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

List of wars 2003–current

While I don't quite get what you're getting at with "as many of your other edits are," the number itself cannot be found in the article by clicking ctrl-F and typing in the number. You must add up the maximum Iraqi deaths, coalition deaths, contractor deaths, and media deaths, if I'm not remembering the number of categories of deaths in the article incorrectly. The number might actually be low.Fifty7 (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You're violating synthesis by assuming that the numbers are calculated using the same methodology. The correct number might be larger, but we may only use individually sourced numbers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair point. But how do we accurately reflect the truth without doing that? The true number of fatalities can only be found by combining the various totals that are given in the article Casualties of the Iraq War only in separate forms. -- Fifty7 (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As has been said many times, Wikipedia is not about WP:TRUTH or Truthiness (well, that hasn't been said many times), but about verifiability. I've removed statements from articles which are obviously true, but for which a single reliable source has not been found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

unsourced BLP violations

Kindly describe which ones are unsourced, and how they violate BLP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_suppression

---

Dr Eugene Mallove, a proponent of Cold Fusion, was murdered in 2004 a few months after writing an open letter to the world requesting research funds for Cold Fusion and Zero Point Energy. [21]

Despite free energy suppression being labeled a conspiracy theory, events supporting this technology are held at MIT, such as "Cold Fusion Science and Technology with Special Tribute to Dr. Eugene Mallove at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology" [22]. A paper was presented at another MIT Cold Fusion Conference, which covered the "Hutchison Effect". [23]

John Hutchison, known for the Hutchison Effect, filed an official affidavit with the US District Court, Southern District of New York, in support of Dr Judy Wood's case alleging that directed energy weapons were a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/01. This case is represented by well-known attorney Jerry Leaphart. [24]

---

Complete Truth (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The association of the murder with the "open letter"[21] is WP:SYN. I was wrong about WP:BLP, as there's no implication of a specific living person being involved. However, the connection is not made in Eugene Mallove, so probably shouldn't be made here.

24 is Judy Wood's web site, so is not reliable. We would need reliable secondary sources for all of:

1. Hutchison filed an affidavit.
2. Judy Wood's case is notable.
3. That the case or affidavit is relevant to the topic. (The claim that the "Hutchison Effect" might be relevant to the topic doesn't support any of the text.)

Some other notes about Hutchison might be appropriate in the article, as it appears he is a fraud inventor who may have invented something he claims is suppressed. However, as Hutchison is living, and the statement is contraversial, WP:BLP applies.

The second paragprah is WP:BIASed, even in the context of the article. [22] is either a personal website or a fringe publication, and is probably not acceptable as to the existance of the conference; and [23] may be acceptable as to the contents of the paper and the claim it was presented at MIT, but we really have no source that there was an MIT conference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia article on Mallove does make the connection between the paper and the murder. Check this section.

Hutchison's affidavit for Dr Wood's court case is accessible via the PACER system. The court case's docket number is: 1:07-cv-03314-GBD

The two cases that Leaphart is representing were vaguely mentioned in the New York Times. See here for quote and link to Times website.

Why do you call Hutchison a fraud? Should you be editing this article if you are biased?

Complete Truth (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

In reverse order. I call Hutchison a fraud because he's believed to be one. See John Hutchison#Charges of fakery. But that doesn't mean his claims of free energy suppression might not be relevant to that article.

There's no claim in your statement that Hutchison's affidavit is related to free energy suppression.

The action affidavit is perhaps 1 of the 3 requirements (there still needs to be a secondary source that it's notable), and the NY Times reference would be at most one more. The relevance would still require a source.

Neither the letter nor the sole reference in Eugene Mallove#2004 murder supports the theory that anyone but Hoagland thought there was a connection to the murder. I suppose you only need one "true believer" for it to be a conspiracy theory, though.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on your last change to the Steven E. Jones article....

Perhaps you take the editor's contributions a little too seriously?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.24.110.17

Wowest (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Timeframe

If it were a word, it would be in dictionaries. I didn't find it in any, but did find 'time frame'. What problem do you have with 'time frame'? Chris the speller (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

1. wikt:time frame seems to think that both forms are equally good.
2. Mirriam-Webster seems to think it an acceptable alternate.
3. "Time frame" violates the manual of style at my employer, noting "timeframe" is preferred.

But I suppose it doesn't really matter, as long as you're willing to change it back if Wikipedia consensus is that it's the preferred term. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

1) Please don't ask me whether I consider Wiktionary a prestigious reference. 2) Looking at Merriam-Webster, it seems to be similar to a redirect from a likely misspelling; if you search for 'time frame' there, it does not offer 'timeframe' as an alternative. 3) Not knowing your employer, it is hard to judge its reasons for pushing a nonstandard spelling.

I am not aware of any dictionary that prefers 'timeframe' to 'time frame', or even equates them. Correcting spelling in WP articles does not imply a willingness to reverse those corrections if WP consensus later changes to disregard established spellings. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please help!

I posted this on the Talk:Homeopathy Page:- TenOfAllTrades, Shoemaker......How can Homeopathy be the 'Fringe view' on the Homeopathy article? If that was the case, the article on 'Islam' should also be considered 'Fringe view' and the Criticism of Islam should be on the article on Islam rather than on the 'Criticism of Islam' Page. At WP:FRINGE, there is a section, titled, "Sufficiently notable for devoted articles", which mentions, 'Creation science', 'Apollo moon landing hoax', 'Time Cube' and 'Paul is dead' which are false allegations/rumours, so the allegations made by references 16 to 19 are not acceptable and so the whole of Para 2 must be removed from the 'Lead'. In fact, Para 1 is more than enough for an introduction.

Is there something wrong with it? Shouldn't Para 1 alone suffice for the 'Lead'?—Homoeopath (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

p-adic number

Why did you revert my change to this article?

I removed the claim that: "positive rational numbers with terminating decimal expansions will have terminating 10-adic expansions that are identical to their decimal expansions", noting, for example that 1/2 does not have a 10-adic expansion. (And indeed, later on in the article it points out that p/q has a 10-adic expansion when q is coprime to 10.)

You could at least have pointed out where I was wrong.

--202.21.130.193 (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were WAREL, who is almost always wrong. In any case, in the 10-adic notation where -1 is ...99999. , 1/2 is 0.5 as a 10-adic rational. It's not a 10-adic integer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, in the context of that claim, we are talking about 10-adic "numbers" which have the form (in the line above) of sum(a^i10^i,i=1..infty), ie, 10-adic integers, so we should probably change "10-adic expansion" to "number" and remove the claim about terminating decimals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.21.130.193 (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the paragraph, as written, made perfectly good sense.

---

More formally, a 10-adic number can be defined as

$\sum _{i=n}^{\infty }a_{i}10^{i}$

where each of the a_i is a digit taken from the set {0, 1, …..., 9} and the initial index n may be positive, negative or 0, but must be finite. From this definition, it is clear that positive integers and positive rational numbers with terminating decimal expansions will have terminating 10-adic expansions that are identical to their decimal expansions. Other numbers may have non-terminating 10-adic expansions.

---

Note that n can be negative. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you are right, I misread that and was thinking n=0. In this context though, the comment a little later: "Generalizing the last example, we can find a 10-adic expansion for any rational number p⁄q such that q is co-prime to 10", whilst correct seems a little misleading as there are also cases of p/q (like 1/2) which while q is not coprime to 10, nevertheless have a 10-adic expansion. --202.21.130.193 (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Categorization of Zeta constant under Irrational numbers

Hello! I noticed you reverted my addition of Category:Irrational numbers to Zeta constant. I added this category because many values of zeta are irrational, as is noted in the article. I would like people who are interested in irrational numbers to be led to the zeta values. What is your view of this categorization? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see your reasoning; I just don't agree with it. Perhaps we should discuss this in Category talk:Irrational numbers? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have started a new section here under Category talk:Irrational numbers. --Uncia (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

DTTR

Please read WP:DTTR, and since I can't find any indications that Eubulides (talk · contribs) has engaged in edit warring, perhaps a review of WP:3RR would help clarify any confusion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

His edit summaries indicate that some of the changes are reversions. As I don't agree with him as to Wikipedia policies or the application of existing article probations, I just want to put him on notice that he may be considered to be edit warring. CS, QG, and SA are already clearly on notice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

He's a "regular", but he may not be up on 3RR. _If_ you can point me to a 3RR warning he's received or made in the past, I'm perfectly willing to delete the warning. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Within the past 24 hours I did do one revert here, at the invitation of the person who made the change being reverted. None of the other changes I made were true reverts, at least as I understand them. For example, in another edit I removed a bunch of stuff that was inserted with zero discussion, but that edit removed only part of what was inserted. If I am incorrect and some of my other edits are reasonably considered reverts, please let me know.
• At this point the edit war in Chiropractic has really gotten out of hand, with undiscussed, low-quality, partisan changes being jammed through by both sides. I have asked that controversial changes be discussed first, as the talk page header suggests, but that's being ignored now, and the article is rapidly going downhill. I suspect that both sides are jockeying for position, hoping that "their" version is the one that gets frozen when the article gets locked.
• I respectfully ask that Arthur Rubin remove the 3RR warning from my page; as far as I know it's not warranted for this particular case.

Eubulides (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, removal of "part" of a previous edit (other than your own) is clearly a revert under WP:3RR, even if it's a reversion of part of QG's non-consensus changes.

“ An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. ”

I think you may have accidentally violated 3RR. Please be careful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

When you suspect a regular, collabortative, good-faith editor may have approached 3RR, it's generally advisable to leave the editor a note rather than dropping a template. Templates are typically reserved for vandals and such. As a sign of good faith, you might consider removing the template and just discussing the matter, since Eubulides isn't the sort of editor who knowingly engages in edit warring or approaches 3RR. Also, edits performed during one editing session in succession count as one. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: I restored my post which you inadvertently removed when you removed the template from Eubulides' page. Thank you for that courtesy. Also, I noticed that you commented there that you're an admin, so I hope you'll be aware of WP:DTTR. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Michael Tsarion

An article that you have been involved in editing, Michael Tsarion, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Tsarion (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? meco (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hovind

As a result of your revert under the heading "non-creationists," it says he debates old Earth creationists. Additionally, under "creationists" it says he debates old Earth creationists. My removal was to get rid of this contradiction, but you reverted it. Paper45tee (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I now removed it entirely. "Theistic scientists" is a weasel word for "creationists". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Note. I E-mailed Aude a request to check my edits on Joel Skousen, as I believe my opponent in this edit war has added clearly incorrect Wikilinks to that article, specifically here. I hope this isn't considered a violation of WP:CANVASS, but that edit almost rises to the level of BLP violation, as it implies that the organizations in question are alter egos of the people, which, is clearly unsourced. If it's considered controversial, it's a BLP violation against the people linked.

I'm not convinced I violated 3RR, but I accept that I was edit warring, so I won't challenge the block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Libertarianism ?

I read that you describe yourself as a Libertarian. Yet your edits on the Alex Jones page are less than friendly. Jones advocates the principles of individual liberty, and the drastic reduction of govt.

I find this puzzling, and thought it would be more productive to ask you why and give you full space to reply.

Yours

Evadinggrid (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The categorization of Jones as libertarian have been removed from the article. The term used there is paleoconservative, which doesn't strike me as particularly "liberarian".

However, even if Jones were libertarian, I cannot defend his comments which I consider factually or ideologically wrong. When even Libertarian Party members who make comments I consider idiotic, I don't try to defend the comments. For example, I believe the Libertarian Party candidate in 2004 was a known tax protester. Believing income tax should be illegal, and believing it is illegal, are two different things, and I could not support a candidate who believed the latter. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not an American and I am living in Britian, although I did used to live in Mount_Airy, Philadelphia. So, some of the more subtle points of american politics are a mystery. As an outsider I am aware that a political party like the Libertarians are composed of many different groups with possibly very opposite views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadinggrid (talk • contribs) 16:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Community comment/reconfirm RfA

Dear Arthur, as an uninterested third party, I am curious to know if you'd be open to the idea of receiving a RFC/U or even consider reconfirming yourself as an admin? There has been some concern generated since you've been blocked five times since January 2008. I look forward to your response. Bstone (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's appropriate. To the best of my recollection, there have only been a few accusations of misuse of admin tools;

1. A misuse of rollback, after which it was discovered that we didn't have a guideline for the correct use of rollback;
2. A block (for the duration of April 1) of an established editor for what I took to be an April Fools joke;
3. Speedy deletion of a β user subpage as a misrepresemtation of policy (it was eventually deleted by user request, as consensus would not allow it to remain as a misrepresentation of policy). I was blocked for that one, but the block was found unfounded by consensus, although there was no consensus as to whether my action was correct.

Most of the other alleged misuse of admin tools have been found completely unfounded.

Four of the blocks were for edit warring (although only 3RR correctly once), 3 on same article. The other block, as noted above, was found inappropriate by consensus.

There doesn't appear to be a consensus that edit warring is or should be grounds for desysoping, unless admin tools were used in that war. All except one of my blocks are for edit warring (that one mentioned above), and I've never used admin tools in an edit war, mostly on the same article, and mostly based on a single field in an infobox; my current take being that, without that field, the infobox is misleading, and, under WP:BLP, should be deleted, even if the subject would prefer the tag gone.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Oh, sorry. Thank you for the advice. Brady4mvp (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy article revert

Your recent edit to this article has nullified my 2-hour work to reorganise it. Nothing was deleted save for a few unnecessary words for streamlining. If you disagreed with my added sources, why destroy all the work I did? My edit made the article so much easier to read- in which format a significant consensus-backed shortening of the article may have been more possible. Since Im quite new to this community, your laziness to correct the intro (which was the only part you voiced a problem with) has really demoralised me to make future contributions to this encyclopedia.Autonova (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just reverted back to the format that I worked towards but left out the intro you had a problem with- original intro is now with revised format. Hope that's alright.Autonova (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything removed this time. I don't consider the structure better, but I can see it's mostly just a reorganization, although there appear to be some new unreliable sources added. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

naysayer Evadinggrid (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Free energy suppression

You know perfectly well I didn't make any contribution I reverted a contribution you had deleted. I asked you specifically not to delete the sourced part of the references.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_energy_suppression&diff=215011644&oldid=215009344

Your comment on my talk page doesn't reflect this fact and it doesn't contain a link to the specific offence. With you being an administrator I assume you left this out intentionally. I asked you to leave the sourced information in the article. You then deleted the whole contribution again calling it irrelevant, you actually had a different excuse then when you deleted it the first time.

Additionally you vandalised my effort towards cleaning up the talk page. Posts where the goal of the editors is to obstruct the development of the article can be deleted. There is nothing wrong with this. Obstruction and personal attacks have no place on the talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines

You are intentionally obstructing the editors by not communicating deleting the contributions and restoring the nonsense. Go-here.nl (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Whether you added them or reverted my deletion of the sections is irrelevant. They're still BLP violations which would, even if adequately sourced, be only marginally relevant to the article.
2. Most of the talk page sections you deleted seemed as sensible as your comments, and relevant to the article, not just to the subject. It's possible that one or two of the 7 sections you deleted deserved to go.
3. As you are apparently an experienced user, I will no longer give warnings as to obvious violations of Wikipedia policy before blocking. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

from my talk page: I think I was wrong about it being a BLP violation. It's still irrelevant to the article, or it's relevance is WP:SYNthesized. And the talk page sections seemed coherent and potentially relevant to the article; at least as relevant as the sections you re-added. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you forgot to mention this was resolved as your error here.

You also mention banning me in the context of your erroneous content dispute and you falsely accused my friend John of being a fraud. A few posts above this one.

Your only comment on the page is:

There's no reference for the accusations of fraud that I can find. If accurate, please link references to the appropriate statements. I see your version has a better tone, but I saw an unsourced change in content.

The talk page posts you had reverted also call Yull Brown a fraud. Just another case of the water car scam. Which I consider offencive but that is not important, it is erroneous and uncivil from an uninformed author.

I'm willing to look up referenced for the article where necessary but your lie based reverting does not help at all. Or do you have actual proof John's ZPE batteries are a fraud with your fraud accusation? We need documented sources of suppression not original research and false accusation.

Please help, thanks. Go-here.nl (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

RE : "------"

Hello there I was putting the "-----" in to produce a line so that the templates wouldn't be too close to the writing above them, I've seen several other users do it, and I presumed that maybe it was something new that was being introduced, it does work quite effectively. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

OK; it just seems odd to me. Sorry about that. I reverted one, as it doesn't seem to help, and removed one template, as it doesn't seem appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Time Times (2008-06)

	Time Times
Issue four • June 2008 • About the Newsletter Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier
News Recent Project News Article count at 1091! 979 are unassessed though, plenty of work for us to do. Project member count reaches 16 members! Keep inviting all your WikiFriends. Award offered—Since 2008-01-05, Sharkface217 has offered a Barnstar to the editor who can expand the article Timeline. It certainly needs it, now that it has been disambiguated from Chronology: Go to the Timeline listing on the Awards page to find out Sharkface's minimum requirements! From the Time Portal History of timekeeping devices reaches A-Class Status—On May 22 the history of time keeping article was promoted by User:Zginder to A-Class. This is our only article to reach this prestigious status. This was only possible with the dedication of the Tzatziki Squad. They are continuing to work on the article to reach Feature Article status. Merkhet was a DYK—The article appeared on the Main Page on April 28. With this text: "... that merkhets were Ancient Egyptian timekeeping devices that tracked the movement of certain stars over the meridian in order to ascertain the time during the night, when sundials could not function?" This also was only possible thanks to the Tzatziki Squad. Recent Time News The June Solstice takes place on 2008-06-20T23:59.
Archives • Newsroom
If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Attacks

Arthur, I am tired of the attacks. I do not deserve this level of humiliation. If you and the others are determined to continue to humiliate me, it will be a shame on you all. I hope you reconsider. I have reverted it again. Do what you will. I think its become very mean spirited. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's discussing your conduct, not your personality. I guess I have to submit it to WP:AN3 for consideration. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

2000s

I appreciate your protection of the page, 2000s. However, there is quite a bit of media attention that the decade name, unies, received versus the other names.

Now, I'm biased that I came up with the word but you have to include it as part of the page's history. Not including my efforts is a shame and not fair.

Did you look at the pages videos? Would you like to see more articles written about the unies, then visit www.theunies.com/blog/.

I'm new to Wikipedia and don't know how to add content correctly. But if you would like to take the time to review the history of the unies, twenty-unies then visit the website. You can see articles and other information about the word. The years between 2010-2019 should be called the decies, the twenty-decies. The deci means tens and in roman numerals, decies is used to group the numbers between 10 & 19.

Thanks, Ryan Guerra

I look forward to your response.

Actually, I like the "uh-oh"s. With a little effort, I can find a 1999 newspaper article suggesting that one. Including your own suggestions for a name, unless accepted (not just mentioned) in a WP:RS, is clearly inappropriate under WP:COI and WP:NEO. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There are many articles about the Unies that specifically linked the name to a person. How does that fit into the equation? They are talking and discusing a name while the give me credit for creating the name. Many common names do not link directly to a single person. Did you see the articles from the State, the Columbia, SC newspaper? The Gamecock? WOLO's Good Morning Columbia? WLTX - Evening News.

Irrelevant. It's your idea, someone else needs to add it unless it's accepted. I have some things I'd like to add to the Axiom of Choice article, myself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the discussion. I'm learning a lot. One more thing, as a mathematian, you use numbers on a daily basis. The counting numbers of 0 through 9 make up all the worlds numbers, correct? They are most often referred to as the single digits. Isn't the problem about naming the decade more mathematically then anything else? Uni means one, like unicyle and unicorn. It's also a prefix meaning to come together and make one uniformity and university. Every scenario in which you use a range between 0 and 9 could be helpful with a word like unies. Examples include: temperature, ages, weather, averages in sports and the missing decade dilemma. The next decade 2010-2019 has the same dilemma. The problem is again mathematical. You can use the word decies to describe all the numbers between 10-19. Deci means ten. Thanks for you time, and maybe you will see what I had to endure for 10 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theunies (talk • contribs) 18:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, I don't think the name of the decade is a mathematical question. I have no objection to your adding your proposed names for the decade(s) to the list of names (as I'd have to research all of them before reverting), but you really can't give it more prominence than the other proposed names. Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability. For the 2000s, there's been enough time that we could rationally demand evidence that a name in the list has been used;, rather than merely has been proposed. For the 2010s, I see no reason to think it should have different names than were used for the 1910s or 1810s, even if your proposal is rational. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The decade name is a mathematical problem. The decade name is simply a unit of measurement because the numbers between zero and nine can't not be group together in the traditional sense. In Latin terminology, uni - is a measurement of one numerical prefix, also listed on the page is deci- another unit of measurement numerical prefix. The only names for the decade that are listed on Wikipedia numerical prefix is the two that are presented in this discussion. Theunies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.144.39 (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

I noticed that you have edited out the reference to a webpage "How does homeopathy works" stating the reason that it is not ea reliable source and it is a personal assay. But, I think you should reconsider your action, provided the person who wrote the article is a professional pharmacist (holding a degree of PharmD, and as clearly stated on the webpage, it is a reproduction of his article published elsewhere. Considerin the present antipathy among many professionals towards homeopathy, it is not very surprising that his views would not find a place in an high impact journal. But, let me add he is not advocating that homeopathy works, he is just offering some possible cues for further research, which in my opinion deserve a small corner in the Homeopathy article. 04:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallenrm (talk • contribs)

If the article were previously published in a peer-reviewed journal, or if he is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (from WP:SPS), it might be allowable. Otherwise, not.

You may note that I have not opposed inclusion of pro-homeopathy references from peer-reviewed not-specifically-homeopathic journals, although I have been removing those which are badly misquoted.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Open Directory Project

Actually, the "sourced" sections did not support the statements at all. The first example: "There have long been allegations that volunteer..." is cited with a link to http://report-abuse.dmoz.org/ which is a non-sequitur. Further removals I made were similar leaps of WP:OR and WP:WEASEL. Please take another look; every statement I removed was not backed up with a citation that supported it. Marasmusine (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your invitation to try to add sources to the ODP article. Most of the statements that are currently embellished with "citation needed" templates appear to be descriptions of criticisms of ODP or weasel-worded statements alleging various improprieties by ODP. I am not aware of much in the way of reliably sourced reports on any of this -- these criticisms were mostly "published" on websites maintained by disgruntled former editors and frustrated SEOs. If I were not affiliated with ODP, I would be inclined to remove much of this material as unsourced, but I can't do that due to COI. I'll look further into the matter of documenting the unsourced elements of the article, but I promise no miracles. --Orlady (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In the German dub, Cell actually says "Oh, shit!"

9001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) got protected. Slow day at RFPP... Sceptre ^(talk) 16:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Haseldine MfD

Hi - not sure what you mean by "copyright violations" in your comment on this MfD as there's no copyright issue in this case. Would you mind clarifying? Thanks. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to, because it involves an editor who has changed his name and reformed. Basically, an editor had been scanning certain journal articles and putting them up on his personal web site as "courtesy reprint" copies, even though he is clearly not a reliable source by our standards. I don't see why this is any worse.

In the present situation, if we accept that the editor is the person, his own statements, even on Wikipedia, seem usable as WP:RS for the assetion that he said that, not as evidence of truth. I don't know why it would be relevant to any article but that on the person, but it seems to be considered such. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt he wrote those letters, however he's been using the talk namespace as a way to work around his COI ban by cross referencing this POV material from the articles he's not supposed to be editing. So the core issues are COI circumvention and intentionally disregarding the rules around self-referencing citations. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Haseldine dismissal

Regarding your last edit, I think I've interpreted this differently to you, based on the following passage in the ruling: "The Commission notes that the applicant was dismissed as a result of the publication in a newspaper of a letter in which he expressed certain opinions on the then Prime Minister's attitude to South Africa." Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I missed that sentence, but the commission also noted that there was adequate justification other than the letter for dismissal. In fact, I would interpret some of the analysis as wondering why he was still employed at the time of the incident. But I'm OK with a revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand

Per this, please do not do that. I made a comment that was perhaps unwarranted, and got warnings for it, so I removed it and the reply solely aimed at my comment. How can you justify reinserting it without so much as a query or a notification? Timeshift (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Actually, I thought it might have been better if you struck it out rather than deleting it, but if SQL doesn't have any objection, delete it again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI Morgellons

Discussion at NPOV Noticeboard here. Ward20 (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Bentham Open

I really want to clear this up. If their policy is to have a peer review for all articles and they list it in their articles section. Why would it be treated any different? Tony0937 (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. From what I know of conventional professional journals, it doesn't seem adequate. The article in question states it's a "letter", and letters are not peer reviewed, unless specifically stated. I don't see "all articles are peer-reviewed" as adequate to cover a self-proclaimed "letter" unless it were more specific. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

1.It is listed as an article, all articles are peer reviewed, therefore it was peer reviewed.

2 We have RS stating it was peer reviewed.

What else do you need? If you still have doubts you can always write them yourself at oa@bentham.org.Tony0937 (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about the "Bentham Open" article by Jones, et al. Is there a way that this can be resolved through AGF? Tony0937 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Shamelessly off topic question

Did you end working in academia and/or doing math professionally as a career? I'm curious about what happens to people who win big competitions early in their careers, how their lives turn out. 98.203.237.75 (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been working in the aerospace industry, mostly. I've made use of some advanced math methods, and my present position involves some advanced linear algebra and statistics. I have been unemployed or semi-employed for about 15% of the time since I got my degree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Sounds like a good field to be in, linear algebra is such a terrific subject. 98.203.237.75 (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Show another disease/syndrome article where the reality is in question

See Fibromyalgia, specifically Controversies Ward20 (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

See also Multiple chemical sensitivity Ward20 (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Most of those at least have recognition as a syndrome, even if the cause isn't apparent. Morgellen's hasn't reached that state yet, in that (at least some of) the symptoms haven't been seen except by "true believers". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

School bullying

Any reasons, why my edit got reverted? Volkov ^talk 15:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not sourced, and may not be true. Victims can be chosen for not being in the in-crowd, or for mental characteristics (being a nerd), or for physical disability, or for being in the wrong place and the right time. I don't recall any instances of victims being chosen by size, other than the general tendancy to select smaller people who may not be able to defend themselves. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove that big about Mexican slang #41?

It was not vandalism, it's true. I almost got killed not knowing that traveling through Mexico.

The spanish page has it with references: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuarenta_y_uno

My Spanish isn't adequate to tell if that's a valid reference (aka WP:RS) or a humor page. However, if you include it with the reference, I won't revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You just reverted..

I made two edits to The Game. You reverted both with no explanation. The reference does not show that the game is currently played by a certain number (which is a weasel words number basically). What was wrong with me altering the text there? Second edit expanded on the context for the XKCD reference, making some commentary on it. What is wrong with that edit?--ZincBelief (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You say "First edit qualifies as WP:WEASEL, second is WP:SYN or unsourced; Undid revision 219338898 by ZincBelief (talk))" '. Although the latter comic contained the message "You just won the game. It's OK. You're free!" which is outside of the normal rules.' First edit notes that the XKCD comic's text. It is correct to say that Winning is not in the rules. The rules being those shown at the top of the article, which do not mention winning. Second edit is unsourced?/introduces point of view. Is that a joke? This is one source which gives a Weasel Words figure for the time it was written. It doesn't give a source for the current number of players. To establish a consistent number you would need more than one source. You could say "In January 2008 it was said..." --ZincBelief (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you want the article deleted, so I expect this explains your behaviour. Reverting multiple edits should be done responsibly with careful thought given to the content changes inherent and at least a brief explanation of the reasons.--ZincBelief (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it still seems the article should be deleted, but I'm in favor of improving it. Your edits do not qualify as improving it. (The source doesn't say that thousands are playing, it says that thousands have played. Putting in "at some time" changes the meaning considerably.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

'Oops - you lose. Confused? It's actually a pretty simple idea, once you get the hang of it. But be warned, once you join hundreds of thousands of people around the world trying to outsmart and out-think each other, there's no going back.' This is the actual text. --ZincBelief (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Witness relations from second before first palne hit WTC

What was wrong about it again? Witness relation is not strong enough from political reason? Propaganda hits back? The name of person is not fake. This is real men and there are more who heard the explosion. Is he not true enough for you?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rodriguez

8:46:28: William Rodriguez working about 20 years in WTC and other employees from level B1 hear strong explosion in building's undergrounds somewhere between B2 and B2 level. Explosion throws them up. On films from the catastrophe there is smoke coming from low levels of the building. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astropata (talk • contribs) 04:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? We only have his word that it's a few (not 15) seconds before the sound of the impact reached him from above, and we don't have an accurate time for his observation, even in his reports. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Countable set

Dear Arthur,

I made a mistake when I wrote on the continuum hypothesis in the article countable set. I should have added that A must be countable for there to exist no set having greater cardinality than A and lesser cardinality than P(A) [the power set of A]. I am sorry but you don't have to get angry about it.

Topology Expert (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought I only edited the GCH section. Nonetheless, as I noted in Talk:Continuum hypothesis, that the following are not equivalent in the absence of AC:

• $2^{\aleph _{0}}=\aleph _{1}$, $2^{\aleph _{0}}\leq \aleph _{1}$, $2^{\aleph _{0}}<\aleph _{2}$
• There is no cardinal m such that $\aleph _{0}<m<2^{\aleph _{0}}$
• $2^{\aleph _{0}}\not >\aleph _{1}$
• $2^{\aleph _{0}}\not \geq \aleph _{2}$

Which is to be considered the continuum hypothesis is an interesting question.

But, that being said, the section you added was much too long for this article. Perhaps there should be a link to continuum hypothesis, but the details should be there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Universe article.

Hi there!

I added a section to the discussion, and await your input.

Thanks! InternetMeme (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hereditarily countable sets

I thought surely that, if the countable union of countable sets is countable, then the transitive closure of a hereditarily countable set is countable. I was curious about the converse. But Consequences of AC says something surprising - the latter statement is form 172, and not only is it totally unsure of its relation to former (31), but the latter might even imply full AC. Eh?

Now, I just now realised that in the actual statement of 172, the notion of "hereditarily countable" is not quite Jech's definition, and that in fact I myself had made the same mistake in the Wikipedia article. Therefore I wonder if Consequences has used a strange definition and arrived at a strange conclusion, or whether I have missed something else.

Can you shed any light on this? Thanks. --Unzerlegbarkeit (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not immediately. I'm presently away from home, trying to take care of matters for my father's surgery tommorrow, and I think I'd need to look at a hardcopy of the book, and possibly at some personal notes, to be sure. As this is not really a Wikipedia-related question, have you asked the other co-author of Consequences? His E-mail is on the site. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing obvious then, hmm. I have emailed him with the issue. Thank you for your time, and my well-wishes to your father. --Unzerlegbarkeit (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Paul Howard agrees as well, and says he will add it to the list of updates. He doesn't know about the converse (172 -> 31). Cheers, --Unzerlegbarkeit (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal

Don't revert to edits that remove things from the 18th century page. The Washington Portrait is extremely famous, and Christopher Smart was published in over 7 languages and was published as far as the US and Canada during his time. His contributions to Children's Literature and Anglican theology, especially with his production of a hymnal and a major translation of the Psalms (one of three major 18th century translations of the work), mean that he is far more than a "local" figure.

If you continue to pursuit, you are acting to edit war. Cease and desist now. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't presented arguments on the talk page, and the edit summaries of the removals seemed to be more in keeping with Wikipedia policies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Screw axis

Hi there, I've spotted your contributions on the back pain, spinal manipulation, etc pages. I could do with a mathematician to cast an eye over the screw axis page, to ensure things are fairly consistent and maybe point out where more attention is needed. I have recently merged the helical axis page, which I created (I am into biomechanics, but am not a mathematician), into the screw axis page. Thanks in advance.Davwillev (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

King Rising

Could you please explain why you replaced a nonsourced paragraph to the article King Levitation without consulting others on the talk page?--Iclavdivs (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It is sourced. The video is a valid source, if available without license agreements. Just because I don't have a copy, doesn't mean it's not valid. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California

There was a call to improve the introduction of Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California, yet you keep reverting a perfectly good intro. The other intro makes it sound like a warzone talking about what a big disaster the community is.

Whats wrong with the intro you keep reverting?68.111.172.226 (talk) 06:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Affluent" is unsourced. You also appear to be very near an editor banned because of vandalism (redefining the boundaries of Anaheim Hills). Perhaps you should edit elsewhere before you make the same edits as a banned editor.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should not accuse someone of something when you have no idea who they are. Ok. Assume they are innocent until you can prove them guilty. That means, dont revert all their edits. Because you dont like them.

And affluent can be inferred since AH is the 2nd wealthiest place in the county. Ive seen it used in several articles about poorer places. 68.111.172.226 (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be banned user:Ericsaindon2. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Prove it please. Just because you dont like what I have to say doesn't mean you can just assume everyone is a banned user. Stop abusing your power. 68.111.172.226 (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

National Council Against Health Fraud

Thanks for fixing my edit - I would have sworn I'd deleted it before saving. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

be real -- no consensus, not keep

I'm really confused as to what this means. Is this tied to words on "Simple English"? Is this a general vote on keep/delete mKR article? Could you please tell me what's going on? Rhmccullough (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

21st century

Just a courtesy note: I undid your last revision on 21st century, because it looks like you accidentally undid a revert of vandalism rather than of the vandalism itself. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Dasavathaaram

• No direct disrespect, but I've been working on the page for months now, trying to bring it up to a GA Level. Currently I'm waiting for the fan craze from the IP addresses to die down before I resume my major editing. It would be most kind of you, if you allow me to proceed maybe for a month constructing the article, which I and other editors will source adequuately.

Please also consider sourcing the article yourslef. Furthermore there are significant mistakes and spam and false figures given in the version you've saved. Please kindly add the tags of "facts" and "plot" on my version.

Thanks,

Universal Hero (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but unless I've misread the diffs (a definite possibility, but...) you've misspelled a number of words. The changes

• (spelling) Discovering → Undercovering (possibly Uncovering?)
• (spelling) renounce → renownce
• (grammar) the "sand lorries" paragraph seems to be no longer correct grammatical English, although the "It's too late" has a questionable tone.

I'm sorry about reverting the numbers and the questionable external links.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I thought I could just make an addition. I attended both conferences and was one of the 30. I simply thought that I could make the addition. Am I not allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.23.88 (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid we need a source for that, too. Sorry. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Some odds and ends

Greetings friend and thank you for making me think harder on the money article. It no doubt can still use some work and could include other things in that section we have been working on. I wanted to mention Willard Gibbs and Howard Scott to you and also Frederick Soddy... all people that I think you will find of interest. I have no doubt you know all about Willard Gibbs. Scott based his ideas on energy accounting directly on the work of Willard Gibbs. Frederick Soddy was a brilliant man. His Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt (George Allen & Unwin 1926) Is still considered a classic in regard to money and how it works. Regards skip sievert (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"Preventative war" or "preventative war"

Hi re our respective edits on David Irving. When you changed Preventative to preventative you shifted the link from preventative war to Preemptive war and changed the meaning of the article. As the latter article puts it "While the latter is generally considered to violate international law, and to fall short of the requirements of a just war, preemptive wars are more often argued to be justified or justifiable." Was this your intent or was it that grammatically p is correct and I should have put the link as [[Preventative war|preventative war]]? Jonathan Cardy (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The case of the first character of a Wikipedia article is not significant, so changing the case wouldn't have caused the problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

OK I see, on further examination it was an extra "ta". I've changed Preventative war to redirect to preventive war not preemptive war Jonathan Cardy (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Would repeatedly uploading useless images/images with no license be considered vandalism or annoying? The Llama! (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Useless images? Not really.

Images with no license? Not exactly, but it's still grounds for blocking.

But don't ask me. I've been censured for declaring actions vandalism in a disputed situation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone in particular inspire this question? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

File:Burke Presbyterian work camp - 2005.JPG, in particular, clearly has an attempted to declare {{PD-self}}. Please replace your tag with the appropriate template, although you can add PD-self disputed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

oops

Hi Arthur -

I've deleted my comment and your reply from the article talk page and moved it here. I want to reply but also want to avoid emphasizing it. If you disagree with this, you are welcome to restore it to the original location.

Arthur, I know you meant this as a joke (on the side of darkness SRA "true believers"), but it's not funny or helpful, it's insulting. These debates are plenty difficult and emotional already, please don't add fuel to the fire. I intend no antagonism with this comment, just a sincere request to keep the discussion on an even keel. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was a bit obvious that it was intended as self-sarcasm, to imply that many of the editors on this article have expressed the opinion that the editors with opposing views are evil, and more may feel that way. But I guess it didn't go over very well. (If you look at the history, you'll see I entered it in one pass, rather than entering "darkness" and then striking it out.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I did see that you intended it as a joke, having done the strike-out at the same time as you wrote the comment, but I didn't get that you were including yourself in the joke. I must be working too hard. I didn't mean to make a big deal of it; my apologies for any possible misunderstanding. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Progress in Physics

So, I am unclear of what type of "proof" do I need to bring that this journal and its editor are examples of crank science? Wasn't the exchange with Dr. Bruhm sufficient? DS1000 (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's sufficient that Dr. Bruhm thinks it's crank science. For that matter, I think it's crank science. Beyond that, it becomes a "he said / she said" exchange, and we'd have to weigh the respective credentials, which is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. The categorization as fringe science was part of the AfD decision last year; if the article didn't include the category, it would be subject to immediate deletion; but that doesn't support including the word "fringe" in the article without quoting someone.

OK, can I at least put back in "fringe" science journal in the description? It is in line with the category...DS1000 (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Controlled Demolition Hypothesis

I do not know who you are, but you must be very confident in your opinions to enforce them in the first paragraph of an important Wikipedia article WITHOUT EVEN BOTHERING TO ASSESS THE VALIDITY OF MY ASSERTIONS ON THE TALK PAGE! -Zinbielnov65.93.55.70 (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I assessed your assertion on the talk page as invalid and previously having been considered invalid. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Check this 'pancake fall' theory: 19. http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf It's fake. Where is here calculation of velocity total falling mass according to kinetic energy transformation? We have there only kinetic equation of the upper part in appendix II on the base with rotation as additional factor. Where is any description of kinetic energy transformation of the lower parts after upper base impact? I'm looking for this and I cannot find. I sure that you're are aware that is a key point of all scepticism. So tell me about. Send me any scientific document that explains this part... I'm really open minded. I just want to be as sure as you are. Now I just think that it is obvious that such fall should take more than 15 seconds if no explosives were put.

Here maybe?: Eagar, Thomas W.; Christopher Musso (2001). Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation. JOM, 53 (12). The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. Retrieved on 2006-05-02.

But this is not on the internet!!

But here 46. Eagar, Thomas (2002). The Collapse: An Engineer's Perspective. NOVA. Retrieved on 2006-07-28.

Another 'conspiracy' theories!!!

So where are the physical equations from the fall? Where in transformation of kinetic energy into movement in the lower levels?

Not any link from that more of 74 shows me that.

(Astropata) 02:34, 32 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been looking at the website of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, www.ae911truth.net, as I stated on the talk page. I am not a civil engineer nor an architect (Mech. Engineering undergraduate student), but this website goes to great lenths to elaborate on the unmistakable similarity between the WTC collapses and the controlled demolitions which the authors of the site and cosignors of the petition oversee as part of their job descriptions. No steel-framed building has ever spontaneously collapsed in the manner of WTC. If you are indeed open-minded then please pay a brief visit to this website - I think it is sufficiently compelling that practising professionals are risking their credibility to make the assertions. As for consensus, I don't see why you insist on being sure that CDH is true in order to withdraw the claim that it is widely believed to be false - the minority of engineers and architects that believe in CDH is not tiny, and worst of all the source used to claim that it is is from a BIASED PHILOSOPHY Article!! If you are indeed privy to the subject matter on a scientific level, I don't understand why you wouldn't be favourable toward using a scientific or poll citation for such an important claim as the one I am attempting to remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zinbielnov (talk • contribs) 03:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that shortly after you reverted my edit of the CDH page, you also consigned another article of mine to deletion. There is nothing wrong with the article, except its brevity, which if anything would merit the 'stub' tag in my opinion, unless you were under the impression that my edits to Wikipedia are of low calibre in general and ought to be eradicated. Please explain your positions, I am also open-minded, hence I would greatly like to see Wikipedia as a source of unbiased facts, even when bias exists in the real world. People ought to make up their own minds; I don't think Wikipedia is meant to be a one-stop information shop, conclusions included. Zinbielnov (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but the claim that these collapses were spontaneous is almost farcical - I seem to remember two large jet liners full of fuel crashing into them first. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7485331.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astropata (talk • contribs) 01:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Your reversions of my reversions of Hu12's edits

Please revert yourself. The links removed by Hu12 were appropriate and not spam. There is a thread at ANI about Hu12's odd behaviour today. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Pending a more complete review (probably within 5 hours), they look like linkspam to me. You may revert, of course, remembering 3RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you join the discussion at ANI before you carry out any further reversions. DuncanHill (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure if you saw this on ANI, but there has already been discussion at Wikiproject Spam about Hu12 and the Gresham College links, it is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.gresham.ac.uk. DuncanHill (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I tracked it down, thanks. Because of the multiple edit conflicts, I'm making the following statement, rather than self-reverting my reversions:

• Any of my reverts of DuncanHill's reverts of Hu12's reverts of (oh, nevermind). Any of my reverts between 13:55 and 14:00 on 1 July 2008 (UTC) may be reverted without it counting against WP:3RR. I still think many of the links shouldn't be in the articles, but not all of my reverts were carefully studied.

I think that's the best I can do at this time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I think that's really decent of you. DuncanHill (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So Arthur, what is it that looks like linkspam in an external link to a lecture by a respected professor on the topic of the article in which the link appears? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

With some effort, I could probably find many such links on each topic, although perhaps not that many "media" (audio/video/podcast). e and π would provide more of challenge to my (limited) search engine skills, but I'm sure that the lectures are there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

So what I was asking was: In what way do they look like "linkspam"? You said they looked like "linkspam". They don't look that way at all to me. Your answer didn't make any attempt to answer that question. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not exactly linkspam, but seems an arbitrary choice among many otherwise acceptable links. WP:COI seems to suggest that we should avoid them, in most cases, unless they were the only acceptable link. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Avoid WHAT? Avoid that particular content? Avoid having that particular person be the one to post that content? Why would one CHOOSE among links rather than post more than one? Is there some rule saying each article must have at most one external link? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a problem. We don't want Wikipedia to become a venue for promoting the site (unless there is something unique about it), and so we should seek out other references. However, not being aware of other lecture amalgamation sites, we'd have to search for references for each article. I still don't think it's in keeping with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, is there any chance at all that you could answer the particular question that I actually asked? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It appeared to be linkspam, and, even in context, some of the links don't appear appropriate, as being one of hundreds of comperable links, and originally submitted by someone apparently affiliated with the college. But, it clearly wasn't intended as spam, and it's still debatable on an individual article basis whether the links are helpful. The ones I checked didn't appear to be, but I hadn't realized that Hu12 had gone rogue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, the question I was asking was "Avoid what?" after you said we should "avoid them". Specifically WHAT was it you were saying we should avoid? Not in general, but in the PARTICULAR case above where you wrote that we should "avoid them"? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Among the potentially hundreds of lectures by respected academics on the topic, we should avoid those submitted by an affiliate of the venue. Is that beter? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely better---thanks.

I think it depends on the actual content. In most cases, those submitted by an affiliate of the venue are spam, but one should judge them to be spam AFTER looking at what they are, not ONLY by noting that the person who posted them is affiliated with the venue. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of RELATED and RELEVANT Links

Arthur,

To be clear, I added the link for IRS Appeals because not enough people know about the Appeals process.

In regards to your example, the IRS was discussed in the article "Income" - especially in the context of the last paragraph of the "Meaning for U.S. Income Tax Purposes" section ("The system seeks to tax individuals in a way that is fair, or at least in a way that appears to be fair. By claiming to assign tax burdens according to how much “income” a person has, the system purports to tax all taxpayers evenly."). How could the only external link you deem valid on the "Income" entry be to an Economic Calendar on CNN.com?

How can it be "unrelated" to topics like "IRS," "Offer in Compromise," or "Tax lien" at a minimum. Are you suggesting that a link to the "IRS Property Auction" or a "Tax Protester FAQ" are more appropriate than a link to the Appeals Office? Perhaps you've never received a letter from the IRS and had no idea what the next step was ... So few know few know about what the Appeals Office what can do for them - only 100,000 taxpayers every year take advantage of this alternative to going to court - that's practically 0%! Hundreds of thousands of taxpayers are eligible every year and don't even know it!

A self-service, customer-oriented product like Wikipedia should be thinking about what kind of information its readers are looking for when they consult the site ... they are looking for a jumping-off point because they have no frame of reference and they look to Wikipedia to give it to them.

At the very least, this link could be of use on the IRS, Offer in Compromise, Tax lien, Tax court and Tax levies articles. If you find the reference to the Appeals Office to be too tangential on the other pages, that's fine, but these articles cannot be considered "unrelated."

Is there any way to appeal your decision?

Alcora (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There are too many links in most of the articles, as it is. For "Income", you have to go through 3 steps to see the potential relevance; Income → Income Tax in the United States → IRS → IRS Appeals. (Furthermore the link to the appeals process is on the front page of the IRS site, unless I've accidentally reconfigured my view of irs.gov.) Similarly for Appeal. IRS is possible. For Offer in Compromise and Tax lien, a link to the directly relevant page at irs.gov is probably better, which probably links to that appeals page. As for an appeal, if, after reading WP:EL, you still feel it's appropriate, try the Wikipedia spam notice board (to which I do not have a hot-link on this computer), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taxation, or writing an (article) RfC. As this covers multiple articles, the respective article talk pages are not really the correct venue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand

Please unblock Betacommand immediately and pass the situation off to uninvolved administrators. Surely I don't need to educate somebody as encultured as you as to why it is a singularly terrible idea to block people for perceived incivility towards yourself? east.718 at 14:06, July 6, 2008

There are (probably) no uninvolved administrators. And the incivilty I was reporting is toward the anon (revert troll). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction (although I don't share your cynicism wrt the other part - there are 1,600 of us after all). east.718 at 14:25, July 6, 2008

AN/I

You're being discussed at AN/I. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

why did you rollback my edit?--

why did you rollback my edit? i don't believe that is the purpose of the function.--Otterathome (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted you as there is no reason to link to uncy on talk pages which mock the subject. So WP:NOT#FORUM and this also applies.--Otterathome (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP clearly doesn't apply, so your deletions seemed to be arbitrary deletiions of talk page sections, which is vandalism, so rollback is quite appropriate. In fact, you haven't yet given a reason, unless you which to quote the "no attack sites" guideline, which has not received acceptance.

Rollback is quite appropriate, and I'll continue to use it unless you can point to an appropriate WIkipedia policy or guideline. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Now reported at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#User_reverting_bad_links.--Otterathome (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read WP:TALK it gives me the permission to remove those comments.--Otterathome (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. You can delete disruptive comments which are irrelevant to editing the article, but the only reason these are disruptive is because of you, and they are not entirely irrelevant. Your WP:BLP assertion is bogus, although the absence of comment on WP:BLPN is disturbing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Any comment can be removed if it does not help improve the article.--Otterathome (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain your removal of the comment from Talk:David Icke, nor does it excuse your 3RR violations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The link is intentionally fictional and useless, and linking to potentially libel information is violating WP:BLP.--Otterathome (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Lord bharat

why are undoing the edit??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord bharat (talk • contribs) 20:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed unsourced commentary. If it were relevant to the film (and there was a source for that fact), and if it had a source, it could be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Help please

Is there a "No pictures on lists" rule? Betacommand keeps removing images from List of recurring characters on seaQuest DSV and then uses his own personal reasoning like it's policy User:Betacommand/Fair use overuse explanation It took a long time to track down decent pictures for those characters and he threatens "re-instertions will lead to a block". Since He was just blocked for doing that will I be blocked for undoing them again? Is it actually against policy or is he just saying what HE thinks should be policy. I try to be polite and go with common sense, but people that use their reasoning like it's the word of God really annoy me. Dr. Stantz (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay; I missed your message among the other disputes. Without checking your specific images, please note that WP:NFCC applies to each image individually and to all images collectively. In other words, if there's only a short paragraph on the character, it's probably not worth an image. Images with more than one character, or images already in use in other articles, are preferred. Etc. The essay is not policy, nor is it necessarily accepted by anyone other than beta and the original author.

Regardless of the present state of WP:NFC, you could be blocked if reinsert images without an appropriately detailed individual rationale for each image. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the article was protected for now, but the article is a list of recurring characters from seaQuest, character has a section, each one is between 2-5 paragraphs long and the images are low resolution screen caps with Non-free / fair use media rationale ( for example [16] or [17]). Is anything missing from it, have they been done right? Dr. Stantz (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have extended your block to 1 week because you have already been blocked four times for edit warring in the last 6 months. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Following a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents#Review_of_a_block I have reset the block to 42 hours. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom case

Arthur Rubin, this is to inform you that an ArbCom case asking for you to be desysoped has been opened at here. Bstone (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Arthur_Rubin_desysop, Arthur, see my comment in clerk notes section. If you wish to comment, post here and we'll move your comment there. It's also possible an arb will ask us to unblock you and limit edits to the RFAR case. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to soon for an ArbCom case to me, also. I'm considering resigning sysop anyway, as I rarely use the mop, provided that I can keep AWB and a few other related tags. This edit war relates to policy, though, as my "opponent"'s actions have the effect of vandalism unless the uncyclopedia links are to be removed from talk pages. I'm not saying that my opponent is vandalising, but his edits have the effect of removing talk page discussion, and should be reverted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you want that copied to the case request as a statement? Also, I think AWB etc. are fully independent of admin status (or they were last time I checked). Avruch 00:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of points Arthur, if you were to give up your adminship at this point, it would count as controvsersial circumstances so you would have to run through RfA again. I would suggest initiating an RfC to get some outside opinions - it certainly wouldn't hurt and you will probably learn from it. It's good to get community opinions once in a while, and I strongly believe it could help here. No point rushing to any decisions - do what's right for you. Would you like to make a statement so I can copy it over to WP:RFArb? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Understood in regard "controverial circumstances", and Sysop automatically gives AWB, rollback, immune from incidential IP block, Twinkle, Huggle, etc. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

AWB access, rollback, ipblock exempt, Twinkle and Huggle can all be given to non-admins. A request at AN should do all of them, if you do choose to resign (not saying you should; I haven't looked into the details yet). —Giggy 12:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, I suggest you not give up the mop just yet, wait and see how this goes and take valid community feedback constructively. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Arthur Rubin

I really don't see a need for an emergency desysoping, unless someone thinks I'm going to go WP:ROUGE. There is little consensus that I've abused any Admin functions other than rollback; there's some question about my block(s) of Betacommand, but if all the admins who have blocked Betacommand were desysoped, we'd have a much smaller sysop set. Perhaps a user RfC can suggest actions I can take to avoid unnecessary disputes. (Considering some of the censored people editing the encyclopedia, there may very well be necessary disputes from time to time.) If Arbcom were to take the case, my opponents in whatever actions are considered questionable (which have not yet been named, as of about a hour ago) would be necessary parties. But I don't really see any attempt at dispute resolution yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks Arthur, I've copied you statement over. If you have anything else to add, please do so here and I'll keep watch. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Me too. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

reply to Avruch

Perhaps the reason that there aren't wheel-wars on my blocks is that, unlike other frequently blocked (former) adminstrators, there's no claim that I'm essential to Wikipedia, I don't have #IRC installed on any of my computers to complain, and I don't {{unblock}}-war? In any case, I appreciate the comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, copied over. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits to 9th Century

Your edit here restored an inline image rendered as a red-cyan 3d anaglyph. These are disallowed under WP:3D because of the quality of the image produced and the requirement for the reader to own a pair of 3d glasses. Based on your edit summary, it looks like you thought I reverted it because it was an image of a three dimensional object. This is not the case and you can clearly see the red-cyan coloring in the picture, as well as the image description, explaining that it is a 3d image. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. For whatever reason, I couldn't see the red-cyan coloring when I looked at it (the image) last night. I should have read the image description. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I searched through Commons to try to find the replacement image but didn't have any luck. You may want to search again to see you have better luck than I did. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

AJ

Fair enough, i just feel there should be some clarification as to what exactly he is "conspiring." Remember, prior to 1492, Christopher Columbus was a conspiracy theorist for stating the world was round. Galileo and many more whose names escape me were all considered conspiracy theorists at one point. Also, its seems very un-encyclopedic to label someone as a conspiracy theorist (obviously there are sources that label him as such). seems more like badmouthing an opinion you (not you - you) than detailing a narrative of a person. WikiTony (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Global city

There is more population of Tokyo than Canada. GDP is also the world's No.1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.33.182.231 (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

All lists in Global City are supposed to be sourced, and that particular list doesn't have Tokyo in the main category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

2008 talk page

Care to comment here? Tocino has reverted the same thing on this page 4 times in the last 24 hours. We need some discussion. Wrad (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this evening or tommorow morning (PDT = UTC-7). I've real world stuff to deal with. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalising the Paul Pantone article

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Paul Pantone. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Thanks, Gdewilde (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Main page mess

I wouldn't mind a little help if you have time. :-) The FairTax article (FA) was listed on the main page this week, so it's now receiving its share of comments. I don't know what your position is on tax reform nor do I care if you support or oppose such a bill. I've always found you to be honest, provide good discussion, and you know taxation and wikipedia policies very well, which is what we may need there with many new users making comments (we get the extremes). We've been through FAR on similar things and it's just so stressful. I'll warn you that it is a controversial subject, so like many of our tax protester articles, it could get a little heated. Anyway, thank you for you help if you have time. We need some level heads. Morphh ^(talk) 18:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

9/11 Article

Hi you removed the pov tag on the article saying that the issue is resolved, coukld you show me how it is resolved with an ongoing disscusion on the talk page about this issue thanks. BigDunc^Talk 17:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Explained on talk page. There's an ongoing dispute, but it's previously resolved, and the WP:CONSENSUS is that "terrorist" should stay. The discussion can proceed, if not in violation of some of the other ArbCom remedies, but the POV tag in regard "terrorist" should not be present. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

yeah seen your reply we both posted at the same time thanks for your input. BigDunc^Talk 17:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Function (mathematics) Function spaces

What is nonstandard about the notation |A| for the cardinality of a set A? Bo Jacoby (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC).

That's not what I saw in the diff or in the resultant article. I see I was mistaken. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ! Bo Jacoby (talk) 07:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC).

super bowl

So, can I add the Superbowl with less detail? For example: The New York Giants defeated the New England Patriots in Super Bowl XLII. (eliminating the score and unbeaten details?) --Washedwithblood7 (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Melissa Farley "Research Psychologist"

Could you please explain your edit to the Melissa Farley article here. The language in question is sourced, and I've documented that copiously, hence, its frustrating that you keep removing it as unsourced. If you have other reasons for the edit, fine, but please do take a little time to provide an explanation. Thank you. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Commented on article talk page. Sorry not to have done it before, but the talk page didn't appear on my watch list, for some reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Your Notice

Consider this the notice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In regards to what? That link you sent to me said something about CT. Are you suggesting that I was posting CT somewhere in that talk page? Did you delete some of my comments from that talk page?Slipgrid (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch

Hi, I realize that you haven't edited Quackwatch recently, but please be aware that it's currently under some ArbCom conditions for editing, one of which is "0RR", meaning no reverts. I saw that you recently reverted a tag off the article. Under the current conditions, better would have been to edit the sentence to address the concern, or bring it up at talk. I realize that this may sound a bit strict, but it's what we're trying, in an attempt to help stabilize an article that was suffering from a great deal of edit-warring. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions, Elonka 18:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I also understand that the 0RR restriction was your idea, not necessarily supported by ArbCom or any other admin. Nonetheless, I'll see if I can rewrite the sentence to cover what the unsupported tag is intended to cover. (I think he wanted to tag the entire paragraph with {{weasel-inline}}, rather than that specific phrase, which I wouldn't revert. Tagging that phrase or sentence as {{weasel-inline}}, if done intentionally, would be vandalism, and could be reverted in spite of any reversion restrictions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My restrictions have most definitely been supported by ArbCom, though I don't recall if this specific one has been challenged yet. If you'd like links to previous appeals though, I am happy to supply them. As for the template addition, it was inserted by an established editor, and as such, could not in any way be classified as vandalism. Inappropriate, perhaps. Vandalism, no. See WP:VANDAL#NOT. --Elonka 19:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Whats This

Could you explain this to me please. I have looked at the other editors on the talk page namely User talk:Thefactis, User talk:Kauffner, User talk:VegitaU, User talk:Sennen goroshi, User talk:Ice Cold Beer, User talk:SheffieldSteel, User talk:Peter Grey and knowhere can I find you leaving a warning on the talk page of the editors named. Are you going to template the rest of the editors named? And if not then why was I given the warning? BigDunc^Talk 19:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and warn those who you think haven't been warned. If you look closly at my contribution list, you'll see I warned 3 editors, including you, and some of the others were named in the ArbCom case, so should be considered warned already. When I think of it, I warn all those editors who have edited the article recently whom I believe have not already been warned. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont feel I need a template stuck on my page i'm sure your aware of WP:DTTR and the template is posted on the top of the article talk page. To me it gives the impression that I am being warned away from editing the article. BigDunc^Talk 21:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:DTTR is complicated in this instance, as you didn't appear to be a regular on that article. If you can suggest a non-templated warning which has the links, I'll change over to that. It was not intended to discourage you from editing the article, only from editing against clear consensus by removing "terrorist", until and unless you can create a new consensus. It's not my intent to discourage constructive edits of the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah come on your an admin a simple note on my page would suffice and not a big red hand template. As regard 'clear' consensus I honestly dont see it on the page it sems pretty 50/50. BigDunc^Talk 21:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just curious...

What does it mean "BRRRD" in your recent edit summary in McMartin? —Cesar Tort 21:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If I had to guess, Bold, revert, revert, revert, discuss. But I could be wrong. WLU (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary vandalism

You have to delete the page and then restore without the vandal edits. It's cumbersome and time-consuming. I wish there were a quicker way to do it. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Rotation Matrix/Eigenvector slew

Rotation Matrix, version 11:31 31 July 2008, is a suitable merger.

But unfortunately there is some Gurch!!

Stamcose (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

question

hi, i asked for clarification here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.119.92 (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Melissa Farley RfC

Talk: Melissa_Farley: RfC: NPOV and BLP issues?

Thought you might be interested. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Intermittency

Hi, I hope I've not trodden on your toes by zipping-up some of the comments on these two pages. Feel free to move things about if you wish. Verbal chat 15:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that's fine. I don't think I would have done it, myself, but I have no objection to your attempt to defuse the situation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

Arthur Rubin, I realize that you are upset that I cautioned you about reverting the other day, but following along behind my edits and reverting me in multiple locations is fairly disruptive, especially since you did not contact me first to express any concerns. Especially at the talkpage of WP:WORKINGGROUP, which is an ArbCom-appointed group that I am a member of, and you are not. You are welcome to post at that talkpage, but please refrain from deleting messages of Workgroup members. Thanks, Elonka 21:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's still a clear WP:CANVASS violation, unless the working group page is exempt from that guideline. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that you actually read WP:CANVASS. There was no violation. Instead, it is actually encouraged for "Editors who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion, might also place such neutrally-worded notices on the talk pages of a WikiProject, the Village pump, or perhaps some other related talk page." For it to be canvassing, it would have to be messages on a large number of individual editors' talkpages, or an excessive number of postings, or messages that were written in a non-neutral manner. --Elonka 21:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It might be appropriate if it were not directed to a group of which you are a member. The RfC doesn't relate to the page's purpose, although I suppose it does relate to the question of whether you should be removed as a member of the group, even if no other sanction were proposed. The fact that you are a member of the group, and the page "belongs" to the group, makes it clearly inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, in relation to the above, what is the "secret report" you've mentioned on Elonka's talk page? Is it online anywhere? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A location for the draft was just mentioned as being at Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars/Draft report in WT:WORKINGGROUP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

2008

Arthur, I edited the 2008 article. I posted under the June headline two items: the start of the UEFA Euro 2008 and its end. I wouldn't mind if u erased just the start, but why the end? It was a major event in sports and Spain won a trophy that's only played every four years. Plus look back at some of the older articles, most include such big events that concern football (soccer). Look up for example 2006 and read about the Fifa World Cup. Am not critisizing your action, I just need to understand your reasoning for this... Adrockos555 (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that was a mistake. If I recall correctly, there was another edit I reverted at the same time, and I just removed all the new edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I understand. Thank you... Adrockos555 (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: TWP redirects

Another editor changed Talk:Railroad to include the redirect project banner; I saw the change since it was on my watchlist. Since it now stored a project banner, I added the TrainsWikiProject banner to indicate the WikiProject that is closest in scope to the redirect's subject matter. I have no strong opinions on whether that talk page should be a redirect to Talk:Rail transport or whether it should contain project banners as it does now, but judging by the small number of pages that links to the redirect's talk page, it makes more sense to me to list the relevant WikiProjects. The page move that created this talk page redirect was discussed at WikiProject Trains in June. Slambo (Speak) 17:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the project banners should be below the redirect? On the other hand, thinking it over, perhaps the redirect should be below the project banner, indicating the move? I still think the target of the main article should also be on the talk page, but I can understand your point of view, and didn't check who changed what. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

confession time | paris agreement

hey mon,

confession time regards changes to the 2015 page about the paris agreement, etc.

I have the references, etc, but to be honest, I am utterly bewildered by the cornucopia of icons at the top of this text box, and I really don't have time right now to figure it all out.

Would it be appropriate to plonk text and straight html links into the 2015 talk page and let some angel take care of it if it stacks up? Or is there a wikipedia formatting guide or even better, interface, that doesn't look like a NASA shuttle dashboard?

ta,

jason

avaiki (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't know of any tutorial for handling the Wikilink citation templates, which I think is what you are having trouble with. Dumping it to the talk page is OK, but there would probably need to be some appropriate Wikipedia article to attach to the statement before it could be included, and I don't think Paris agreement (or Paris Agreement) is the correct name. Perhaps there's somewhere in the Help: space that could help you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

888 (disambiguation)

Curious why you're reverting (without comment) the addition of Aug 8, 2008 to 888 (disambiguation) ? –xeno (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Becuase it's not used, except in the marketing campaign for a movie to be released today (where it's "8-8-8"). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if two people thought it should be included, is it doing any harm? Also, the Chinese clearly consider it to be representative of the date, having scheduled the opening ceremony of the Olympics today in line with their reverence of the number 8. And, as you know, rollback should not be used for good faith additions. –xeno (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the Chinese government also refers to it as "8-8-8", but I could be wrong. And, although we can assume good faith, adding unsourced material which is found primarily in advertising, may be assumed to be taken from that advertising. I'd accept it with the phrasing, "In advertising", 8-8-8 may be used to indicate August 8, 2008. In fact, I may add that, myself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

A fair compromise - thank you. –xeno (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 9

I created a bot approval request for the time-category sortkey fuction you requested. The request is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 9. Could you look over the trial diffs to see if the bot is doing what you were thinking it should do? (It would be best if you could reply on that page, rather than here or my talk page.) All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 19:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The task is now done. I reverted a few bad changes the bot made, and I see you reverted at least one. Feel free to look through User:Polbot/time sorting log at your leisure. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 18:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Money article

Could be that some intervention is required on the money article Arthur. It just got ripped to pieces again by the same person that seems to have a thing for some odd aspects that really do not make a lot of sense to me or others. It was pretty well agreed that it looked pretty nice toward the last of my editing. I adding some nice pictures and other stuff... Let me put it this way. It just is bad now. Not factual. Not accurate. Borderline it is not. It is hijacked and very very odd. skip sievert (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I noticed the same thing just happened to the Commodity money article also... and reverted that one. I do think he is making a case against just plain old very well known info. skip sievert (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

He just did it again to History of money the one you reverted. I am going to revert it again. He did it right after your revert. skip sievert (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. I'll check whether User:protomoney has received a 3RR warning, and watch it, yourself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Arthur.. he is doing it again on the Money article (Protomoney is). Completely strange, useless information that does not make sense. He just keeps pasting in the exact same stuff that everyone editing the article disagrees with, and removes. I do not particularly care for his Swastika description of some coin that he keeps adding. It is not a Swastika... or remotely connected to that term. This further degrades the information ... not to mention that he does not understand English as to writing it. skip sievert (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Arthur.. this is the point where the article got wrecked it looks like. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Money&diff=next&oldid=230114054 I can not reverse the edit because of conflict page changes... but this may be the place to go back to. It was all pretty much downhill from here. Can you bring it back to this point? As said it will not revert for me now because of technical changes. Maybe I could bring it back piecemeal. skip sievert (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You can [undo] a series of changes but selecting the difference between the two versions out of the history, and clicking the [undo] link to the top right. If you get desperate you can revert to a previous version by clicking on it (from the history), click "edit this page", and be aware that you may be reverting other changes made after you see the article, as that overrides the edit conflict detection. I'm busy in two other articles at the moment. I'll get back to this, but, unless you're in danger of being seen as being involved in an edit war, you can do most of it yourself. (Note that only User:Elonka considers reverting edits made with no other editorial support and more than one edit supporting the previous version as an "edit war", so you're probably safe on that score.)

Unless, of course there some good edits in there with the bad.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok... I went back to this point http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Money&diff=prev&oldid=230114054

Which was then finally free of Protomoney nonsense... and where everyone pretty well agreed that the article was looking pretty good. There may be some minor adjustments to make... but it is back in good shape and ready for just ordinary improving again now. It has been over 24 hours since I messed with it... so that should be safe as to over editing it. Any way to prevent that person from continuing to wreck it with nonsense and gibberish?skip sievert (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the article RfC seems to have gotten one comment from the outside, which doesn't really represent a consensus. I suppose a user RfC would be the next step. I suppose he could be blocked for disruptive edits, but I don't think we've really reached that point yet. (And I'm an involved admin, so I cannot block.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I think it was at least two people that showed up to say he was all wet. One quoted ... One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest.. in regard to that particular editor... and another made a very pointed comment that they agreed that it was purely and oddly left field. Protomoney did immediately put his stuff back in after you reverted and tried to put up explanations of why you did so... last edit before this. skip sievert (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul Pantone

Hi. Well it seems that maybe there are important things to say abouthe the man himself (in particular his condamnation for swindling). And there's quite an important controversy over his engine that justifies a separates article for it. I'm going to explain your suggestion on the article's talk pages and see what other contributors think.

Regards,

Xic667 (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

FTN

Per our recent discussion at AN/I, I am curious if you had a chance to review my last comment at FTN. I am curious not only about your take on this debate, but also on my commentary there. If you have a chance, drop me a note and let me know your thoughts. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the admin dispute you mentioned at AN/I, if you are referring to Coppertwig, I don't think that he/she is opposed to inclusion of the homeopathic info at Atropa belladonna either. I don't think he/she has stated a position. If you go to User_talk:Coppertwig#Mentorship, you will see that Coppertwig recognizes the consensus to include. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Money article

I do not think that the new guy editing information on this article (Criticisms.. and Alternatives), is really interested in presenting a well rounded view... He did not seem to understand what you said about Post scarcity systems... and the long scientific aspect of studying those concepts. I added more sources and refs even.. Two separate sources for notability as to the origin of energy accounting and several academic papers are cited. He has reverted it now. I put it back now twice. Not sure.. this guy lists himself as an economics professor... and can not seem to absorb a different concept of subject.. or so it seems.. he seems biased by calling all the information fringe without a real discussion. Fringe it is not... and that is his reason for deleting it. skip sievert (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

SRA & AT/RE

• I suppose the last would tend to indicate I'm not uninvolved

In fact, I tried to say in the boards that AT and others have been pushing a fringe pov; the notice on you had replies by Eleland and others about AT/RE behavior: what I wanted the people in the boards to see. —Cesar Tort 19:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In other words, I didn't mean to expose you at all, but you know who. —Cesar Tort 01:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

All of this is quite new to me, but thanks for taking care of everything. My comment might at least have the merit of showing that I am not on a "tag team". Or perhaps it was a classic double bluff smoke screen. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

tag team

I think as long as Wikipedia emphasizes collaboration and consensus, "tag team" will be the epithet of choice for POV-pushers. That is why I think the essay on tag-teaming is worth keeping, although I think it needs to reflect a wider range of views and experiences that its initial form. I just did some editing of it and would very much appreciate it if you would go over it and make what improvements you see fit, and add to the discussion as you see fit. My edits were motivated in part by my concerns that tag teaming was being misrepresented or respresented ina way trhat missed the point ... but also because I thought the essay was poorly writen and becoming overwrought as people added to it; I wanted to onclude diverse views while also streamlining the language ans organization. Anyway, I would value your attention. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 07:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne

Arthur, I'm not sure the block on Arcayne is necessary given the editing pattern today on Jack the Ripper. It doesn't look like egregious edit warring, and it was 2 reverts, so what about the history there merited a 48 hour block? Avruch ^T 16:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that it appeared to be baiting User:DreamGuy, rather than attempting to improve the article, was the trigger. He had been blocked for 3RR a year ago, or I would have given him only 24 hours, with DreamGuy still getting 48. Fairness suggests either the article should be protected, and both blocks reversed, or both edit warriors should be blocked.

I was going to report the block at ANI for further consideration, when I saw the yellow flag. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"14:54, 12 August 2008 Arcayne (Talk | contribs) (51,948 bytes) (we don't need more than a single reference noting its usage. If people demand more to prove the point, we can revisit the discussion, but its a minor point, at best) (undo)"

Is this the baiting part, or is there another element I'm not seeing? Avruch ^T 16:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, does your parole prevent me from contributing to discussions at the article discussion page? I have no plans to edit in article space until the matter is resolved, but I thought the discussion page might be a gray area.

Btw, where are we supposed to have had negative run-ins? I don't recall any. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to your contributing to Talk:Jack the Ripper. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You referred to previous run-ins. Where/when are we supposed to have had these negative run-ins? I don't recall any. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think our respective opinions in the Elonka affair might be considered a conflict. I'm sure Elonka would consider it so. She probably thinks I'm on a Wikipedia:tag team with User:ChrisO, even though I had no previous contact with him before the RfC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you, I never considered our difference of opinion a conflict whatsoever. As well, I think we have never really interacted in conversations about Elonka. Was there anything else that is recent? You pointed to four points of locus (and recent points at that); the recent stuff about Elonka followed the blocking. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You might have noticed it already, but DreamGuy posted a reply that specifically addresses you in the 3RR complaint I filed. I'd want someone to let me know. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Could I trouble you to alter the block, as I wasn't edit-warring or baiting, please? I would like it clarified for posterity, so it doesn't cripple opportunities later on. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Coin Problem

I've addressed your concerns for the 'special sets' section. Borisblue (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

user:Carnoustie2008

is this User:Mika2008? Started up about the time Mika's block would have expired. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps so. Is it worth requesting a sock check, or are they just going to be blocked separately? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I blocked Mika and went to AN/I, where it was pointed out that he'd not edited for a while. So I unblocked. Looking at Carnoustie, I see similarities. Erratic editing- some good, some bizarre. Cheers, Maybe continue the thread I started at WP:AN/I. Or start anew. Dlohcierekim 22:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you crazy? You remove everything I wrote, simply because YOU think a part of it is wrong?

Instead of talking, or correcting something which you think is wrong , you prefer to remove all of it? Protomoney (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The majority has already been rejected by consensus.

All sections which alter the definition of "money" to exclude "commodity money" have been rejected and will be reverted. You can change consensus be providing reliable sources (which does not include recognized experts in the history of coinage unless also recognized as experts in the history of money).

I don't really see the relevance of Hammurabi to the history of money, but you should, as it also provided for the first official mint. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus? You name consensus your POV? I provided numerous of references. Where are the references that support your view? Where are your reliable sources? Protomoney (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is at the RfC link in Talk:Money. And your references are all clearly books and articles on the history of coinage. We only have your assetion, not even that of the authors of the references, that that is the same as history of money. (And, although this may be a hypertechnical point, if the book is on the history of coinage, then we can only consider it reliable as to the history of coinage, unless some expert on money specifies that they're the same, or possibly if some external expert on money states that the author is an expert on money.) The "alternatives to money" and "criticisms of money" sections are probably quite rightfully gone, as most of the sources were the Technocracy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

On Wikibreak for about an hour — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

My references are much more reliable than yours, of an online newspaper [18] entitled "Shells are believed to be 100,000-year-old jewelry". What this article has to do with money?????. I repeat my question you avoid to answer. Please answer before reverting again money article. WHERE ARE YOUR REFERENCES? Protomoney (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

changes inconsistent with the WP:MOSDATE ?

You wrote: "You seem to still be making changes inconsistent with the WP:MOSDATE, although I haven't rechecked The Chicago Manual of Style." Would you kindly mention one or more such articles and specifically what the inconsistency is. Anomalocaris (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily recently, but:

• 4th century BC — use of spaced mdashes. Not precisely in the MOS, but Wikipedia:Timeline standards specifies a regular "-" rather than a spaced mdash for setting off subranges. I honestly think a ":' would be better than any dash, but the timeline standards and corresponding articles within Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year are the appropriate venue for getting it corrected. Specific examples at the present time:

• Late 4th century BC — Diadem, reputed to have been found in a tomb near the Hellespont. It is now at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
• 399 BC Socrates is executed in Athens on charges of impiety and corrupting Athenian youth.

• I don't recall the article, but date ranges such as February 17 - March 1 require a spaced ndash, because of the spaces within the dates.

That's all I can remember at the moment. Your corrections of dashes in the text of the articles and of entries is appreciated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Violation of parole

Arcayne made a post in direct violation of his agreement not to at the Jack the Ripper article.[19] Knowing what a stickler for the rules he is from JeffPW's[20] [21][22]memorial I think its important that he stop disrespecting Admin's and using the rules only to further his agenda and twist everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.246.140.62 (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems obvious that the parole should only last as long as the block would have lasted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

And you will recall that I asked you for clarification before even participating in the article discussion. Seems I have a brand new anon "fan", Arthur. This is why I asked you to refactor your block. As I had not baited or edit-warred, you have effectively given the uninformed, anonymous and possibly mischief-minded a brand new hammer with which to swing at me with. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

DreamGuy. Yet Again

I decided it might be best to avoid even the slightest appearance of baiting, edit-warring, annexing the Sudetenland, whatever, by bringing an emerging problem to you for your immediate input.
At the JTR dab page, I removed a reference to JTR standing for Jack the Ripper (which seems a pretty narrow field of folk who refer to it as such). Shortly thereafter, DreamGuy reverted it back in, noting "revert clearly incorrect -- the song JTR is about Jack the Ripper, used all over", which seems to address the inclusion of a song, which I had not touched.
I undid this revert, noting that the song hadn't been removed. DG responded by reverting yet again, noting that "the existence of the song and the software proves this one is legit, plus other sources".
One doesn't prove the existence of the others, at least, not the way that DreamGuy is suggesting. Now, I could simply ask DG to please discuss the edits, which he would (as per his regular schtick) ignore. As that seems to be counter-productive (it resulted in you blocking me for "baiting"), I am going to set this matter entirely in your lap. Hopefully, you can provide some illumination to DG that neither I nor anyone else seems capable of doing. My only other step is to again report him for contentious editing. I certainly don't want to be accused of edit-warring or baiting. I am going to wait and see how someone who sat in judgement of me handles the same sort of situation., - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of Jack the Ripper in the disambiguation page of JTR. A simple google search, like this one: [23] shows it to be a common and widely used abbreviation for the phrase. It's a simple entry, extremely well supported. Google itself will prompt the user searching for the single term JTR to click on Jack the Ripper as a related term. That JTR is widely used as an acronym for Jack the Ripper is a fact.

Arcayne has failed to elicit a single editor in his quest to delete the encyclopedic record of the general public's use of the abbreviation JTR, indeed he's made no attempt at all. This is simply a continuation of his attack on DG, one done without even a hint of consensus or intellectual basis. No amount of wikilawyering or continued forum shopping will overcome the basic fact: JTR is commonly used by a wide audience as an abbreviation of the phrase "Jack the Ripper". Therefore it's inclusion in the JTR disambiguation page is entirely consistent with all that is Wikipedia. But, as we all know, this has nothing to do with the acronym JTR and everything to do with Arcaynes personal vendetta against a Wiki editor. 75.57.171.204 (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your pot-kettle comment, Anon-Who-Stalks-My-Edits. Were I interested in the slightest in feeding you (or indeed, in your comment whatsoever), I would have directly solicited it. I am not going to disturb Arthur's page by arguing the point here. When reverted, a person is to go directly to the discussion page, to provide an argument for their edit, not engage in edit-warring. We don't rely on Google, as results from there can be manipulated by a small group of fans. Were you actually interested in editing, instead of focusing your edits on attacking me, you might have discovered that by now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not a requirement that Editors may only post when previously invited by Arcayne. Nor is it acceptable for Arcayne to have whichever Edit or Revert he chooses and all others must create a discussion and seek consensus to change it. Has the thought ever occurred to you to seek consensus before you act? The question was simply is JTR an acronym for Jack the Ripper - Google is an excellent source for demonstrating common usage. Add this: [24] A list of JTR acronyms from the Dictionary.75.57.171.204 (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for creating an alternative, Arthur. I am not sure how long it will last, but it seems a good effort. As well, thanks for mostly ignoring the anon troll. I certainly try. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem still remains, Arthur. DG is talking about an apparent consensus that I am not seeing, and is at his 3rd revert for the day (I have stopped at two, as undoing the revert again isn't going to have any effect, and might be seen by an admin as baiting). Are you seeing one? What would be the appropriate next step at this point? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, the edit has been the consensus edit for over two years now. Here is the page from 2006:[25]. It's just a common use of the term[26] and has long term community consensus. Arcayne has made 'no attempt to gain a new' community consensus - His edits have been a heavy handed and unilateral reverting of the long held consensus. He is baiting and acting in a very un-wiki manner while trying to wikilawyer himself into a "win". Arcaynes actions in this matter do not further the best interests of the Encyclopedia or the civility and respect for long standing community consensus needed to build it.75.57.160.195 (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"I decided it might be best to avoid even the slightest appearance of baiting, edit-warring, annexing the Sudetenland, whatever, by bringing an emerging problem to you for your immediate input." -- LOL -- so running off to another editor with a history of personal conflict for no reason to try to establish a mob action instead of following Wikipedia policy is Arcayne's idea of not showing edit-warring, etc. The only reason he left this here was specifically so he COULD edit war, and to do so through wikilawyering b getting someone else to do a revert on his behalf to avoid being blocked again like the last time he pulled this stunt. Man, talk about an editor who clearly does not get Wikipedia policies in the slightest.

I would hope, Arthur, that you in the future remove yourself from such obvious and clear tag teaming, especially considering your history of teaming up with Arcayne and also the fact that you unblocked him last time long before his block was supposed to expire solely so you could forge yet another fake consensus on a talk page while I was unable to respond.

All in all it'd be nice if the people who are only editing out of personal conflicts would stay the heck away from any JTR-related article space. Certainly if your goal is to pretend you are editing in good faith, these actions do not support that claim. DreamGuy (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not tag-teaming if your actions which are reverted are against Wikipedia guidelines, which I believe they are. There seems to be a weak consensus in favor of Arcayne, and against you. Please read WP:Cabals instead of WP:Tag team, for a more rational view, and don't assume that you're always right and other editors are always wrong or violating Wikipedia policies. As for my actions, if admins with a conflict with an editor in one venue were prevented from acting in another venue, then some tag teamers would be safe from reprisal because there would be no admins left. I brought up my block of you for ANI review, and the consensus is you should both have been block for 96 hours, instead of the 48. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Novus Ordo Seclorum

Can you please read the wiki page on Novus Ordo Seclorum ?

And then and only then explain why the link is not appropiate, as in my opinion it removes bias leading the reader to make up their own mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadinggrid (talk • contribs) 13:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

NWO needs to be disambiguated, and the New World Order (conspiracy theory) is obviously correct, with Novus Ordo Seclorum being correct only if he specifically uses that term. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

1337

|-|ELL0. 7h1$ 15 |2|_|th L4|2M0r3. i aM 53n|)i|\|9 '/0U t|-|i5 |\/|3$5@GE +0 i|\||=0|2|\/| j0U \/\/|-|4t 1337 15. 17 15 t|-|E EL1t3 L4N9u@9e 0f +|-|3 1|\|73|2|\|E7 U5ed 8'/ se\/Er@L tjpE$ of p30pLe $ukh @$ h@(|{er5, 5pammErs, 4|\|d/0|2 s+up1|} +EEN4ge|2s. i7 1$ \/\/|-|Er3 '/0|_| 5U8$t17u|23 |\|UM|3e|2$ @Nd 07he|2 (|-|@|2a(7e|2$ o|\| +he K3y|3oa|2|} F0r Le+7e|2$. JU$+ 7|-|0U9|-|t '/0U'd L1|{e +0 kN0w. Purplepython378 (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this is English Wikipedia. --harej 00:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh?

So why did you block Jay for no reason? --harej 16:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to know the answer to that too. I informed Jay. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I am curious as well. —Animum (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I was angry; I shouldn't have blocked, but he clearly shouldn't have unblocked. I forgot that misuse of admin tools is not grounds for blocking, except on an emergency basis, but only should be brought up at RfAr. The fact that I've previously been blocked for use of admin tools (later found justified) shouldn't have effected my decision, but I'm afraid it did. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, you shouldn't have blocked him, that is an understatement. At this point I'd like to know what Jay thinks. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh gosh. See, I believe that my unblock of Betacommand was clearly justified, and I explained why very clearly, and said I would initiate an RFC on myself if people feel that was appropriate. We can disagree civilly, without the need for punitive blocking. I think this block indicates you are unsuitable as an admin, but I'll leave you to decide how to address that. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this being discussed anywhere else? I am happy to let this matter subside but I would appreciate knowing if there is an ongoing discussion about it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's moot, unless someone were to reblock Beta if it were found the unblock to be improper. However, I don't see any rational reading of either the ArbComm or community prohibitions which would allow him to do what he apparently did. (I haven't checked the complete edit log, so I have to use "apparently".) Nor has anyone else other than you and beta. To assume it was not intended to be covered, would require the assumption that the community wanted beta to edit rashly, as long has he didn't use any automated tools. I think that requires a lack of good faith. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

But I really don't see any support for your position in ANI/beta. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, blocking another admin out of anger for unblocking someone you are clearly unhappy with is clear-cut abuse, and, your status as an admin should really be revisited at the appropriate noticeboard, or, RFC depending on preference. SQL^{Query me!} 05:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I've been watching this since it happened. But I'm not sure that this is ready for AN/I or RfC. Jay doesn't really appear to care (although I could be wrong). Synergy 05:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I do care, but not enough to want a desysop over something that has been self-corrected. If this protestation continues that only myself and Beta support the unblock, we probably have at least an RFC on our hands. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for SQL (though I doubt its what he meant), but this is not the intention. I think what we were trying to say, is that such actions should be presented to the community for discussion. I don't want to leave you with the impression that this is whats being asked. Synergy 06:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Aye, I'm sorry for the confusion. These actions, need to be brought to the scrutiny of the community, for review. That being said, blocking out of revenge is not how we operate here, and, is not acceptable, from member of our community that is supposed to be trusted to make judgment calls regarding this type of action. SQL^{Query me!} 06:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not that familiar with Arthur's background, but I do know that his block of Jay was totally inappropriate. If this is the only transgression of concern, I think we can drop this. If it's not, an RFC on Arthur may be in order. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Really?

"I consider Ned Scott (talk · contribs) and Rjd0060 (talk · contribs) to have some of the same inability to see the obvious consensus that Beta has." [27]

I'm just wondering what gave you this idea? I'm thinking it is related to what I'm pointing out in my comment here. You are clearly against Betacommand in general, considering your recent inappropriate block of another administrator. I'd appreciate your thoughts. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Appears to be automated", and the fact that Beta has been wikilawyering his previous conditions in regard automated tools. For what it's worth, I (retroactively) support his actions (but not his comments) in the image area, once he finally described what his bots were actually doing. Most of his other bots caused damage to Wikipedia, leading to the bot restrictions. I have no objection to some of beta's supporters being involved, provided that some of those who have opposed beta are also involved. Otherwise, there is no appearance of fairness. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would of course completely agree with that – in fact, I've gone so far as to say that nobody who has been involved with him at all should be in the group (in my comment - diff posted above). I just left you a note because you seem to imply that I cannot judge a consensus, and for that, I wanted an explanation, as I think I'm entitled to one. I certainly have my opinions; who doesn't?, but I am capable of putting them aside to listen to others. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

kay sieverding user page/ pro se

I do not understand why my revised user page was deleted or locked. I thought that I could present myself as I wished. I included not only my email address but also my full name, address and telephone number. Why was it a problem for me to quote a petition I filed in the 8th Circuit En Banc court?

I do not understand why my revisions to the pro se page were deleted. You said that you didn't want personal information on that page and I didn't repost anything I was personally involved with. I spent an hour copying quotations from the U.S.code, the U.S. Supreme Court, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the Colorado Supreme Court, the U.S. Judicial canons etc. and all of that was deleted.

The current pro se page does not list any source for its statement that there is no right of self-representation. The quotations that I pasted in supported a right of self-representation. One of them was from the U.S. code itself and has been in the U.S. code since George Washington signed it. That was

“In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.” Title 28 Part 5 Chapter 111 § 1654. Appearance personally or by counsel

I don't see how Wikipedia can publish something that conflicts with the U.S. code, with no supporting authorities, and then delete the U.S. code itself.

I don't understand how it can be considered inappropriate to quote the U.S. Supreme Court. My quotations were accurate and the entire rulings are available at the Cornell Legal Institute.

I don't understand why my offering the Cornell Legal Institute, the U.S. Pacer system, and monthly case services was inappropriate or deleted.

I don't understand why my quotation of the Supreme Court of Canada about the Quebec bar association with the citation was removed from the ABA page section on criticism of the ABA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs) 20:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In no specific order:

WP:NOT#MYSPACE; you may not write things about yourself unless relevant to Wikipedia.

Most, if not, of your excerpts from court decisions, the US Code, the Cornell Legal Institute, and the US Pacer system, are what we call WP:PRIMARY sources, and should not be used unless the relevance of the source to the article is supported by reliable secondary sources. (There are exceptions where primary sources are allowed, but most of those exceptions have exceptions where a real, living, person, such as yourself, is involved.)

As for the pro se page, since you seem "constitutionally" (pun intended) unable not to perform legal research, you should tag the statement that pro se litigants are not generally allowed with a {{fact}} tag. (In fact, pro se litigants are not generally allowed in civil cases, but, obviously, pro se defendants are allowed in criminal cases, with some exceptions.) Perhaps you should note some of the primary references on the article talk pages, to see if anyone can find secondary references.

I fail to see the relevance of the Supreme Court of Canada decision about the Quebec bar association to the American Bar Association. Even if state bar associations were affiliated with the American Bar Association, the Quebec bar association wouldn't be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"case law" dump?????

How can these Supreme Court cases be considered 'case law' dumps? They were combined with text that I spent time writing.These are major Supreme Court cases and U.S. code. The unsupported Wikipedia posting that there is no right to self representation definitely is at odds with

“In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.” U.S. code Title 28 Part 5 Chapter 111 § 1654. Appearance personally or by counsel ---This law was signed by George Washington

“Abstract discussion is not the only species of communication which the Constitution protects; the First Amendment also protects vigorous advocacy, certainly of lawful ends, against governmental intrusion…. a State may not, under the guise of prohibiting professional misconduct, ignore constitutional rights… Resort to the courts to seek vindication of constitutional rights is a different matter from the oppressive, malicious, or avaricious use of the legal process for purely private gain… Although petitioner has amply shown that its activities fall within the protection of the First Amendment, the State has failed to advance any substantial regulatory interest, in the form of substantive evils flowing from petitioner's activities, which can justify the broad prohibitions which it has imposed.” NAACP v. BUTTON 371 U.S. 415 (1963) U.S. Supreme Ct. This decision was the basis of U.S. desegregation.

“We are not unaware or unconcerned that persons identified with unpopular causes may find it difficult to enlist the counsel of their choice”. SACHER V. UNITED STATES, 343 U. S. 1 (1952) U.S. Supreme Ct.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” 1st amendment

“We once again reiterate, however, as we did unanimously in Leatherman, Swierkiewicz, and Hill, that adopting different and more onerous pleading rules to deal with particular categories of cases should be done through established rulemaking procedures, and not on a case-by-case basis by the courts.” JONES v. BOCK U.S. 549 01/22/07 No. 05–7058 U.S. Supreme Ct.

“(b) Any such rule creating, abolishing, or modifying an evidentiary privilege shall have no force or effect unless approved by Act of Congress” U.S. Judiciary Act Title 28 § 2074 b

“the capacity to sue is determined …for an individual who is not acting in a representative capacity by the law of the individual’s domicile.” Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 17 b (1)

“Rights of suitors. § 21. [As amended April 1977] (2) In any court of this state, any suitor may prosecute or defend his suit either in his own proper person or by an attorney of the suitor’s choice. [1975 J.R. 13, 1977 J.R. 7, vote April 1977] Every person has an absolute right to appear pro se. Hlavinka v. Blunt, Ellis & Loewi, Inc. 174 Wis. 2d 381, N.W.2d (Ct. App. 1993). A nonlawyer may not sign and file a notice of appeal on behalf of a corporation. Requiring a lawyer to represent a corporation in filing the notice does not violate the guarantee that any suitor may prosecute or defend a suit personally.” Jadair Inc. v. United States Fire Insurance Co. Wisconsin Supreme Court 209 Wis. 2d 187, 561 N.W.2d 718 (1997)”

“Every person is entitled to a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive to his person, property or character, and to obtain justice freely and without purchase, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, conformable to the laws.” Minnesota Constitution Article 1 § 8/ Wisconsin Constitution Article 1 § 9 Remedy for Wrongs

“Our cases have recognized successful equal protection claims brought by a “class of one,” where the plaintiff alleges that she has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment. See Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota County, 260 U. S. 441(1923); Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Commission of Webster City, 488 U. S. 336 (1989). In so doing, we have explained that “‘[t]he purpose of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is to secure every person within the State’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through duly constituted agents.’” Per Curiam VILLAGE OF WILLOWBROOK, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. GRACE OLECH No. 98–1288 U.S. Supreme Ct., 2000.

“That the action of state courts and judicial officers in their official capacities is to be regarded as action of the State within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment is a proposition which has long been established by decisions of this Court. That principle was given expression in the earliest cases involving the construction of the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, in Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313, 318 (1880), this Court stated:

It is doubtless true that a State may act through different agencies, either by its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities, and the prohibitions of the amendment extend to all action of the State denying equal protection of the laws, whether it be action by one of these agencies or by another.

In Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 347 (1880), the Court observed: "A State acts by its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities. It can act in no other way." In the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 11, 17 (1883), this Court pointed out that the Amendment makes void "State action of every kind" which is inconsistent with the guaranties therein contained, and extends to manifestations of "State authority in the shape of laws, customs, or judicial or executive proceedings." Language to like effect is employed [p15] no less than eighteen times during the course of that opinion. [n13]

Similar expressions, giving specific recognition to the fact that judicial action is to be regarded as action of the State for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, are to be found in numerous cases which have been more recently decided. In Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 90-91 (1908), the Court said: "The judicial act of the highest court of the State, in authoritatively construing and enforcing its laws, is the act of the State." In Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hill, 281 U.S. 673, 680 (1930), the Court, through Mr. Justice Brandeis, stated:

The federal guaranty of due process extends to state action through its judicial as well as through its legislative, executive or administrative branch of government.

“The rights created by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment are, by its terms, guaranteed to the individual. The rights established are personal rights.”

” SHELLEY V. KRAEMER U.S. Supreme Court 355 Mo. 814, 198 S.W.2d 679, and 316 Mich. 614, 25 N.W.2d 638

If you don't want these quotes because of who I am then Wikipedia will be at odds with the U.S. code and the Supreme Court.

Someone deleted this one too:

“The chief judge's directive at issue here clearly discriminates against pro se litigants solely on the basis of their pro se status and, in that respect, lacks any rational basis in fact and thus violates equal protection of the laws” Tassian v. People, 731 P.2d 672 (Colo. 01/20/1987)

Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy 01:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

non-standard analysis

Hi,

Would you please state your concerns either at the article deletion page, or at WP math? Deleting someone's edits without discussion is an odd way of presenting your case. Katzmik (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please respond to my comments at the discussion page if you get a chance. Katzmik (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Line removal

I removed the part that stated that "Nature's Destiny" contradicted "Theory In Crisis", it did not. This is a very common misunderstanding of Denton's work, he never opposed evolution, he opposed the Darwninian model of evolution..and he did this in both books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giles1234 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't comment on that, although most ID'ers refer to "evolution" as "Darwinism", so I have little doubt he's contradicted himself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

non-standard calculus

There is a dispute regarding the proof of the intermediate value theorem. Please comment. Katzmik (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

On Vandalism

I have been watching lots of vandals and I am not sure when is the right time to warn and ban them. So can you please handle this vandal (maybe block) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.18.80.192. Orion11M87 (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what should be done with this user. User talk:216.14.177.97. -- Orion11M87 (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There are no constructive edits, but I'm not convinced the IP is static, so a long-term block serves little purpose. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I am convinced. OK, thanks for taking a look at this chronic vandal. — Orion11M87 (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

standard part function

If you get a chance please amplify the discussion there. Katzmik (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Transfer principle

I noticed that the article on the transfer principle has vanished or more precisely has been redirected to a section in hyperreal number. The redirect was preceded by various negative comments about the article stub that existed there. Certainly that sketch (which I probably wrote most of) wasn't very good, but I believe it was more accurate than what exists now. I've sort of given up on edit wars, and discussions about article quality. I certainly don't care if people say the article sucked, but I do think some semblance of accuracy is important. Perhaps you might want to look into this. Thanks. --CSTAR (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Tough one. I think what you had there is more accurate than what there is now, and, in addition, there are transfer theorems in set theory, such as the "Jech/Sochor" and "Pincus". (I found a link to a page of my mother's book, Consequences of the Axiom of Choice, which suggests there is something there in note 103 of that book.) I'd always seen application of those transfer theorems referred to as transfer principles.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am always in favor of succinctness, so I would suggest the page on the transfer principle should be recreated. I'll slug it out for you :) Incidentally, Hardy made an intesting criticism of the term "internal object" at the standard part function talk page. Any suggestions? Katzmik (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually find some of the verbiage at the transfer principle section of hyperreals helpful, and some of it redundant. Fearlessly I recreated the transfer principle page based on the material at hyperreals. It will obviously need to be edited to remove the redundancy. Please add the material from the old version that's not there. Katzmik (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I added the old version, as well. Please delete redundant material. Incidentally, were you aware of Bishop-Keisler controversy? Katzmik (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please respond to my comment at talk page of transfer principle. Katzmik (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC) and again Katzmik (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Ramu50 is editing Function_(mathematics) again

He's probably well intentioned, but he writes all sort of tangential stuff, about GPGPU macros and what not. I'm really busy with real life this weekend, so I cannot flag his section over and over... If you have some time, please keep and eye on his edits. Thanks, VasileGaburici (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Alex Jones

Only to let you know, I'd say we do agree that this kind of thing goes too far and removing it was helpful. I hadn't seen what had been thrown into those other sections of the article (as an aside, I'm wholly neutral about whether to say he's known for "conspiracy theories"). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Gb

Hello Arthur Rubin, was this a mistake? I can't see any vandalism. --Oxymoron⁸³ 14:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just wondering the same thing. Maybe you clicked on the wrong username? Tiptoety ^talk 14:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

<embarassed> Yep. I was trying to block an IP returning to vandalism (probably at the start of the school year), and I blocked the last person to block him, instead. (And then I went on to install a system upgrade, so I wasn't online.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Have a present. ;-) _Gb^T/c 15:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

er, Arthur... You're a good guy and whatnot, and its good to have you about, but can you please use a little more caution with the admin tools? Between your blocking log and your blocked log, the impression of a troubled administrator is hard to avoid. It looks like the Jay thing above didn't result in an RfC, but you have to be aware that you're on the leading edge here. Avruch ^T 19:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Dr. Arthur is really a good person, and happens to make a mistake. Is it too hard to forgive? — Orion11M87 (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree entirely. Clearly an honest mistake (check the logs and you'll see that the next block he made was the one he intended to make first time around), and something any of us could have done. To err is human..._Gb^T/c 20:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I understand that. It happens, not a big deal. My note was more a general caution that I guess is more appropriate to the thread above, but since this other bit was here I thought I'd leave it at the bottom of the page instead. Arthur is definitely a good guy, like I said above, and does more work and better work certainly than I have in awhile. I just would like him to not get run out on a rail, and that means he needs to be more careful ;-) Avruch ^T 22:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Gb, I agree, and nice present, is it for eating? Can I get one too? LOL Cheers. — Orion11M87 (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet another SPA Jonty Haywood sockpuppet

See PLUSChelmo (talk · contribs · count) and note the list of "creators" on his NN drinking game article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem

Hi, Is there a proof of the above using the hyperreals? Katzmik (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Blockhead blockage

Greetings!

You have suggested that I might be blocked. Feel free to block me at any time.

Bukowski99 (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

request for arbitration pro se page

Current requests

[edit]Supreme Court and U.S. code quotes 'Initiated by Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk)atSelf-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC) [edit]Involved parties Kay Sieverding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), filing party Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Famspear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Non Curat Lex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) When I found the "pro se" page, it contained statements that were contrary to the U.S. code and Supreme Court statements. No sources were cited for the misrepresentations. I pasted in the U.S. code and Supreme Court cases concerning the subject both with footnotes and they were repeatedly deleted by "Non Curat Lex", "Famspear" and/or "Arthur Rubin". One of them also deleted a quotation, with references, from the ABA journal interviewing Justice Scalia. They appear to have an agenda of wanting Wikipedia to keep these Supreme Court decisions, the U.S. code, and Justice Scalia's statements secret. They keep calling Supreme Court decisions "primary sources" and "case dumps". In other articles on legal issues, Supreme Court decisions are simply summarized or quoted with footnotes. One of them deleted a Supreme Court discussion of William Penn. It does not appear that they have posted anything with any footnotes. I deleted only a few unsupported sentences that were contrary to the Supreme Court and the U.S. Code. My character is being attacked for adding quotations of the U.S. code, Supreme Court and various constitutions. I don't know what to do but I hate to see Wikipedia spreading misinformation. I don't have a problem with them posting laws, cases, quotations etc. but they are not posting verifiable authorities, they are just deleting my verifiable major authorities and criticizing me personally. They also deleted a scholarly U.S. 2nd circuit decision that quoted 2 law review articles and 4 history books. Much of what they deleted they removed to "sub pages". I don't have all the Wikipedia formatting figured out and I tried to post a request for style. I guess I did that wrong somehow because it didn't appear but they wouldn't help me do that right. All that I want to do is make sure that the U.S. code and relevant Supreme Court decisions are posted so that Wikipedia users see them. I thought the Justice Scalia interview was relevant and that the deleted 2nd Circuit discussion of history was much better than the postings without footnotes that it supplemented. There is extensive discussion on the article discussion board. Some of it they removed to subpages

Request for arbitration

A request for arbitration involving you has been filed. Please see this page and add any statements or comments that you consider necessary. Stifle (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

functions

For the n times I will tell you that it is not in your place, status or as any significant citizen to deem, consider or judge or even moreso, stereotype upon the entire electrical engineering and graphics industry of what is notable or not notable. Mine as well stop acting so immature. --Ramu50 (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your additions have been removed by about 5 different editors. Although I can't yet say there is a formal WP:CONSENSUS that they don't belong, there certainly is enough of one that you could be blocked for those addtions (although not by me, as an involved admin). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't play dumb and hide and seek with me ludicrous, trying to synthesize something which isn't there. My works are submitted at September 4 19:23. It is clearly seen that the work are roughly 2000 bytes, everytime I revert you are the only one who undo it until the present. By the way undoing it without any discussion of talk pages, obviously show you are totally stereotypical and have nothing to offer when I already discuss this with Dominus, whon is the first one to brought up the contribs. By the way Wikipedia policy didn't state that dissapproval of works must be removed. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Again and again I need to tell you to mature up and stop posting fake adminstrators warnings. Such naive act you put on. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: I am referring to the signifcant paragraph or the purpose (the paragraph).

Again and again I need to tell you to mature up and stop posting fake adminstrators warnings. Such naive act you put on. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ramu50, pardon me, but I flagged your contribution for deletion as well. If you look at the talk page of the article, you'll see that yet another two editors (User:Jitse_Niesen and User:Dominus) could not figure out what you were trying to achieve with the section you wrote. So, no, Arthur Rubin is not the only editor to think the material you contributed was inappropriate. It so happens that he pressed the undo button, but that doesn't mean your edit would not have been reverted by others. Instead of taking it personally, please discuss the matter on article's talk page. P.S.: If you look at Arthur's picture, he seem mature enough... VasileGaburici (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you see any similarity...

Do you see any similarity between the edits of Inigmatus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Protomoney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? I looked for a while, and it didn't seem like it to me, but I wanted to ask if someone more familiar with Money and Currency could compare the two.

Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Without further research, I lean against. In money, Protomoney was pushing the assertion that "money" has to be officially certified, and cannot be only bullion, while Inigmatus was pushing the NESARA (hoax) definition of money. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Ingmatus also contributed heavily to the NESARA pages a while ago, and that might be worth looking at. I just wanted to make sure that this wasn't sockpuppetry on related ideas on Money. If you don't think there's any particular concern here on that account I won't worry about it. Thanks for your input. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Odd Ore's harmonic number

Why [28]? 1 is a trivial odd Ore's harmonic number. "no odd Ore's harmonic numbers (except for 1)" might be misinterpreted as saying there exists a single one of unspecified value, so maybe "no odd Ore's harmonic numbers above 1" would be better. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think 1 is Ore's harmonic number. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the reason for your pipe to harmonic. Ore's harmonic number redirects to Harmonic divisor number. See http://www.ams.org/mcom/2007-76-259/S0025-5718-07-01933-3/home.html#Abstract. Harmonic number (disambiguation) also mentions this definition. Maybe it would be better to use the article name as in "no odd harmonic divisor numbers greater than 1". PrimeHunter (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. I was editing another talk page with a number of edit conflicts. But is 1 an example of Ore's harmonic number? Actually, the whole thing was a mistake. I've reverted. Sorry about that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

UNLINKING DATES

Personnally I don't agree with unlinking all the dates anyway but since it met consensus I am only unlinking the dates as they appear and then someone can go back later and change the format if need be. I asked for a week and knowone said anything so finally I just started going. I knew someone would say something eventually. Besides all that we shouldn't need to wait to unlink it just because we don't know what format to use. Like I said before we can always change the format later.--Kumioko (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we can't go back. Unlinking can be done automatically. Linking cannot, as there is only 1 September... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What? I didn't understand that.--Kumioko (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"There is only 1 September" is an example of a phrase where "1 September" should not be linked, regardless of any linking policy. It's not well-written, as "1" should be "one", per other MOS guidelines, but that shows auto-creating links cannot be done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would we want to go back and relink the dates anyway, the consensus was that dates should not be linked. As I said before I don't even agree with it but if the community says that they should be unlinked then ok, I will do what I can to pitch in and follow the wishes of the community. Although I will admit that many pages have alot of unnecessary date links I think that unlinking the dates will cause more harm than good in the long run.--Kumioko (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I'll fix that and I have stopped editing dates for now.--Kumioko (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

• Thank you for standing up with me on these sub parts of my user page on free speech and the Fairness Doctrine. Even Jimbo believes this too (I gave him a full copy of the Pelosi letter on August 23rd). I only wish other editors could see the light of day on what is coming. Chris (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		Even though the efforts to keep the Pelosi article on my user page were not successful, I am so thankful at least someone in Wikipedia other than Jimbo saw the light on this. As a result, I offer you this barnstar as a matter of thanks. Chris (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I put in the link of the Pelosi article from my sandbox history in your link on the front of your user page since it was deleted last week. I just hope the users who deleted this article aren't crazy enough to ask for sandobx to be deleted, but I have seen stranger things happens in Wikipedia. Chris (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

virtual reality and happiness

Hello!

Is it possible to put the following entry in this article? http://education.vsnl.com/nimbkar/vr.html

Thanks and regards. Akraj —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akraj (talk • contribs) 13:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Doubtful. It says it's an editorial from the Times of India, but I, personally, don't consider editorials a reliable source. However, even then, it would need to be taken from a reliable site, which yours is not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC comment

Regarding your comment:

"I don't think this is appropriate as a user conduct RfC, but as a Wikipedia content RfC."

Your first remark regarding WP:CHILL is precisely what I was getting at with the RfC. All I asked for initially was that people hold off on the mass edits until we could discuss the issue further. Several editors involved in the dispute started off pointing to a particular bug report on bugzilla that had gone unanswered for a long time, as evidence that there was no point in further discussion of the issue (because the developers "didn't care" about the issue.) After I provided the requested patch (a few hours later) they changed their tune and insisted that no technical solution was going to be acceptable. I prefer that we keep date autoformatting, but have been open the entire time to a consensus decision to disable it. I've even provided an additional patch to disable it entirely (no change to raw format, no linking of dates) so that we could quickly test that rather than editing hundreds of thousands of articles, but again no interest. Sapphic from the Database Analysis WikiProject is currently compiling comprehensive statistics on date formatting in articles, which will hopefully allow us to gauge the scope of the problem (inconsistent date formats is a real problem that nobody disputes) but now Tony1 is even arguing that we shouldn't gather those statistics. It's impossible to carry on meaningful discussion on this issue while Tony1 (and a few others, but he's the worst offender) continues to unlink dates en-masse and to block all attempts at a fix. I was about completely fed up and at a loss as to how to proceed, and appreciated reading your outside view on the matter (the others that argue for date autoformatting are irritating to me because they miss the point, which I think is about Tony1's behavior) made me feel better. Thank you. --UC_Bill (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

first order logic

Hi, Hope all is well. I am a bit confused about the idea of representing everything in first order logic, could you try to straighten me out? Take, for example, the well-known result that a connected, simply-connected planar domain is necessarily homeomorphic to a disk. It seems that a quantifier reformulation of this would involve both the existence and the universal quantifier over higher-order objects (i.e. sets and maps). How does the transfer principle apply to this type of proposition? Katzmik (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Money

Sorry about that. I didn't realize there was an anti-money talk in talk. I reworded the intro based on the intent of the source to simply define terms based on a null-system hypothesis and not come off as sounding like it came from that anti-money crowd. Looking at the arguments in talk, I can certainly understand the apprehension for my apparently out of left field insert into the article. I'm all for fiat currency (it's the only way a modern economy can work). The definition for money, though, I thought, should be clear for readers as being a concept first, represented by things "used as" money second. The uses of the term "standard" and "concept" in the article are proof that the concept of money is not adequetely addressed. I look forward to contributing what I can to the article and discussion. :) inigmatus (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Good compromise. Thanks! inigmatus (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I was curious as to what specific criteria that Barnard's book fails as a source. Also I am curious as to how you can claim "money is a concept" is not a quotable when clearly other sources state it absolutely. Perhaps I should move the specific reference to the exact part of the phrase it supports? inigmatus (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnard is apparently not an economist, as far as I can tell, so his book fails credibility as a source unless published through a "scientific" economics imprint. And "money is a concept", by itself, is a nullity. It also fails grammar, as "money" needs to be quoted. You would need a reputable source that currency is not money, or an example of "money", but is, instead, an "exemplar" of "money". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying the only sources that are credible for Money are economists who have their work published in a "scientific" economics imprint? If so, that seriously limits the presentation on information concerning the matter; and I would of course recommend the deletion of the entire section on "Concept of Money" since I do not know of any "scientific" economist who has published these ideas in an imprint. Assuming of course this is the only criteria for sources in the Money article. I also do not think it will be easy to find anyone who writes out "currency is NOT money," since not even Barnard says such. He and others simply point out of the obvious: currency is used as money, but for simplicity sake we just drop the "used as" and thus say "currency is money." You may call it a semantic non-saying or other such gibberish, but the case was made in talk that understanding that money is a concept is key to understanding money period, and how currencies are accepted and circulated. You may not think it's notable enough for even a clarification in the article, but the application of the missing term "used as" is evident everywhere things used as money is talked about. If anything, the definitions currently talked about in the article besides the Concept section, are simply talking about the effects of money, not definition of money itself. Case in point: prove that money is equal to the term "medium of exchange" - and if so, why isn't medium of exchange directed back to money? inigmatus (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"You may call it a semantic non-saying…"

Exactly. If a reputable economist, or a reputable economics book, says that money is a "concept", it might be considered for the article.

And medium of exchange is not exactly the same as (examples/exemplars) of money. I admit to pushing it, but an item subject to spoilage might be considered a medium of exchange, but would not be considered money, as it is not a "store of value". Also, a cheque, which is claimed to be a medium of exchange, is clearly not money, but it represents money. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that the "acceptance" of things "used as money" is a notable concept for explanation in the article on money? Most consider the acceptance of things used as money is obvious for its definition, but it's the separation of the concept from the things "used as money" that is not so obvious to many when it comes to money theory, and I think it would be an appropriate piece of information in the article. It is often inferred in economics materials, and in many cases outrightly stated. It need not its own article, but at least an honorable mention in money - and I think Dr. Barnard's source is notable and verbose enough to explain it. If you want a different source, I posted some; but I want to know first what you think of including a phrase that hints that money is a concept that can be separated from things used as money. inigmatus (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I consider it a philosphical construct, as to whether we have:

• A. The concept of money
• B. money

or

• A. Money
• B. Things used as money.

(I'll convert this to a table when I get the chance, after looking up WikiTable syntax.)

"A difference that makes no difference is no difference."

However, in history of money, tracing the history of the concept of money may be different than the history of things used as money, but there's no reason the article shouldn't contain both, if they can be appropriately sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Spore reference in number 42

You have deleted references to the video game Spore in the number 42 page several times now by several different people. As there is a heading for Video games, what makes you think that this is not a valid point to be put in this article? Valacan (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless there are few (if any) other numbers in the game, it's not notable, even in the context of the game. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And I'm not convinced there's more than one person involved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I forgot to log in so the very last change was done by me. But Snugg was another one and the other unknown one could be someone else as well. Anyway, I replied to your post in the number 42 talk page for more info on why 42 is special in that game. 99.224.225.49 (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Valacan (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

infinity

Hi Arthur, please reply to my comment concerning your edit at talk:non-standard calculus. Katzmik (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

pro se/self-representation page

Dear Arthur

Self-Represented Litigation is a subject that I have collected references on and am familiar with. When I started contributing to this article it said 8/26/08 "there is no fundamental right to self-representation." No citation was given for that at all. I posted various quotations of the U.S. Supreme Court, which were deleted on the grounds that you can't quote the Supreme Court. However, another user has more recently quoted the Supreme Court in a different case and there has been no objection to that. I went to the U.W. law library, a 5 floor library, and used their computerized search on both "pro se" and "self-represented". There were only two books and I checked out both of them. One was on reserve. After posting my intention on the comments page, I spent all day Monday typing in the table quoting the various state constitutions, which Non Curat Lex "disagrees" with. That was from the AJS book that I checked out from the library reserve for 24 hours. I posted the American Jurisprudence Society quoting the U.S. Supreme Court, which was deleted I think by "Non Curat Lex". I posted an ABA article I found on the Internet and that was deleted I think by "Non Curat Lex". I am having problems finding the exact wording but on Wed night it was changed to something to the effect that there is a constitutional right to self-representation in a criminal proceeding but not in a civil matter. A 1964 S.C. case concerning the right to a government paid defense lawyer in a criminal prosecution was cited as a reference. I changed that to say that there is a constitutional right in both civl and criminal matters. I emailed to the ABA and asked them for their input and they emailed to me a location on their web site. I quoted that and it was deleted. Here is another ABA publication, which says that there is a "constitutional right".

"Constitution v Ethics There is little disagreement that individuals have a right, rooted in the U.S. Constitution, to represent themselves in a court of law. The exact source of that right has been debated and at various times attributed to the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution, the First Amendment Right to petition the government for redress of grievances, the equal protection clause, and the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments requiring a meaningful hearing. The Supreme Court, on many occasions, has found self-representation to be a constitutional right. It is, therefore, a long-held belief that the courthouse door should be open to everyone. The practical application, however, is not clear. Exactly how far must courts and judges and lawyers go to assure that access is truly equal? The problems with that issue lie in the ethical dilemnas faced by those charged with carrying out this mandate." Source: Patricia A. Garcia for the American Bar Association "Litigants Without Lawyers. Courts and Lawyers Meeting the Challenges of Self-Representation." 2002, p. 11. ISBN 1-59031-061-6

My quotations of the New York Times were also removed.

It seems to me that "Non Curat Lex" has a POV that the article should say that there is no right to represent oneself even though the ABA, the American Judicature Society, and other "legal authorities" disagree. I have absolutely no problem with anyone adding any references to the article but I am bothered by the idea that the article will again be incorrect and convey that there is no right to self-representation. Kay Sieverding Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's complicated. It appears that the right to self-representation is not a fundamental right (as defined elsewhere in case law) (and as sourced to an Supreme Court opinion), but is a right based on the Constitution and incorporated to the States. However, it's clear to all rational observers, in spite of Ms. Garcia's essay above, that the "right ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" does not require the government to accept, or even acknowledge, the petitions. (See, for example a few paragraphs in Tax protester statutory arguments#Demanding an explanation of tax obligations, and various other tax protester arguments which claim that if someone writes a demand to the government, and that demand is not denied within a number of days, that it is considered accepted.) I'll have to get back to your specific edits later, but the problem is that you've included case law dumps which are at best tangential to the issue here. There was one, in particular, which deals with the right to a government-paid lawyer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you (and Kay, if you're different), stop adding irrelevant sections (about legal aid, and other "access to courts" issues not related to self-representation) and case law dumps to the article pro se (now pro se legal representation in the United States)? If you are Kay, you still haven't learned Wikipedia guidelines. If you're not consider this a level 2 warning that adding inappropriate material to an article may be considered vandalism, after you've been informed it's inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Rubin--It would be helpful to me if you would link to the particular Wikipedia policy you are asserting. The ABA and AJS discuss legal aid and other "access to court" issues in publications that have titles using the words self-representation and or "pro se" and the Supreme Court and Appellate Court cases specifically address due process after filing of self-represented actions and use the words Access to Courts in them. Kay Sieverding 24.183.52.130 (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the ABA and AJS combine "access to court" issues with self-representation and access to government-provided (and paid) counsel, doesn't mean necessarily that we should. (That's a separate question, which you could have brought up if you hadn't "poisoned the well" with your case law dumps. Now, very few would take it seriously.) We have to use pro se as it is understood by the layman, namely representing oneself in court, rather than any other "access to court" issues.

The Wikipedia guideline seems to be WP:COATRACK; you're adding material that may be relevant to something related to the subject of the articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, be careful not to edit war, ok? You are properly reverting material that is being inserted against consensus so if you need help, please ask for it (there are other editors watching, pop a note on one of their talk pages) rather than run afoul of WP:3RR. I've warned Kay, again, that consensus is needed. Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 21:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It didn't seem that anyone else was watching. I count 5 revert sequences I've made within a 24 hour period, although at least 2 included reversion of inadequately sourced BLP material. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Nod. Well sometimes others may not be watching directly, as they may be working on other things... just drop a note, reach out on IRC, use email, whatever it takes... don't be the lone ranger! :) Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 22:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Farrokh

Farrokh is anti-government, and I surprised when I read your comment there. Maybe you are not familiar with Iran. The official policy in Iran is even sometimes against everything before Islamic Iran. The current accepted version of history by Islamic Government of Iran is not pro-preIslamic Iran. The official school textbooks support this idea that Iran history starts and ends with Islam and pre-Islamic Iranian kings and dynasties were bunch of cruel tyrants. I hope that you don't fall in this trap that all Iranian are bad because of the current unpopular regime of Iran--Larno (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Iranian scholars don't think he's an Iranian scholar. Why, then, is he notable? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Reason for GoldMoney reversion?

Arthur, on GoldMoney you reverted 'a registered money service business that is regulated by Jersey.' A reliable source was provided as it is the original registration certificate from Jersey. In addition, the original certificate can be verified through Jersey's website which is contained in the GoldMoney references section. You gave no reason(s) for reverting the edit. Can you please undo your reversion or provide reason(s)?

Thanks. Jonahtrainer (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What it is registered as, and the relevance of that registration to the business of the company, seemed unclear. It still does, but I've restored it, in part, in the lower section. It doesn't belong in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Money service businesses are like banks and exist in a highly regulated statutory framework as described in the Banking Law in Criticisms. GoldMoney is the only digital gold currency that I am aware of that is a registered money service business which distinguishes it and probably should be in the lead due to its unique status.

The sources are on the GoldMoney site but are original source documents issued by Jersey's Financial Services Commissions. The source documents on GoldMoney's site can be verified, but may require a fee, through the JFSC link in the External Links section which should make them all reliable as JFSC is a third-party governmental entity. I added the link as such. Jonahtrainer (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines

Dear Arthur

I have been reviewing the Wikipedia guidelines for user pages, article discussion and communal pages. We are overusing the article commentary, which is just supposed to be used for discussion of verification and not much else. The drafts should be on a communal page which has no one's name on it. There is to be no threatening. These guidelines seem good to me. Do you know how to create a communal page? kay sieverding (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Arthur

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_templates Thank you for the suggestion. kay sieverding (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Pro se

Mr. Rubin: I put this proposal on the talk page the other day intending to be a request for urgent action, but no one seems to have noticed. Feel free to leave any thoughts you might have - if you feel like it. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you help please?

There has been constant vandalism to the article Serial killer. An editor who is working with the Serial Killer task force just did a clean up of the article and has been discussing things with me because I mistook him/her to be a vandal [29] and reverted their work. I would like to request semi protection for this page for awhile if that is possible to stop the anon IP's from the attacks of the article since the task force seems to be trying to get all the artilces into shape. I was requested to ask for the semi protection since I have been cleaning up after the vandals. I have never made this kind of request before so I am not sure I am going about this the right way. If I need to go somewhere first please advice me of where so I know how to do this. Thank you for your attentions to this matter, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the request and why it was declined: Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Serial_killer_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29

Pro se article

[30] For your information. I'll keep an eye. Risker (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

why did you claim this was unsourced, when it is sourced to the ABA web site?

Sue Talia began teaching principles of limited scope representation first across California and then across the nation since 1998. Since then, she has presented more than 100 programs to lawyers, judges, and court personnel. Targeting solo and small firm practitioners who represent middle-income clients, Sue gives them the tools and skills to reach many more clients than they can reach through traditional legal services. In 2007, Sue traveled to Texas, Georgia, Colorado, Minnesota, Alaska and Iowa, in addition to venues in her home state of California, to give presentations and provide technical assistance to those interested in furthering unbundled legal services. Contributing over 1,000 hours per year to these pursuits, Sue provides her services without compensation and has never refused a request to provide this training.

The ABA sent me an email about pro se litigation referring me to that website and they have her an award for her services to pro se litigants. Why did you remove that? Participating organizations include the American Association of Law Libraries , American Judicature Society Chicago-Kent School of Law (which received the ABA 2008 Lois M. Brown 2008 Award for Legal Access) , The Justice Management Institute </ref>Legal Services Corporation , National Center for State Courts , Pro Bono Network , State Justice Institute,and Zorza Associates

Why did you remove the above list of organizations involved in pro se issues that is sourced both on the Internet and in the ABA book? kay sieverding (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This list of organizations shouldn't be here, per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Sue's "travels" seem to be sourced only to Sue, even if the ABA committee were to be considered a reliable source. (By the way, the ISBN you give for the ABA book fails. I'm perfectly willing to believe that there is such a book, but that's an improper ISBN format, which can't even be mapped to the actual ISBN.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

deprecated/depreciated

Hey Arthur,

I noticed your comment about "deprecated" vs. "depreciated". I can help clarify this at least; "deprecated" is a synonym of "obsolete", while "depreciated" is the opposite of "appreciated". It is confusing and I'll sometimes say "depreciated" instead of "deprecated" anyway, even though now I know better.

So, hopefully these terms make a bit more sense to you now :-) —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Loose Change (film)

Why did you revert my edit. Likely a mistake given your many reverts at the time, but I'm unsure how that can happen. - RoyBoy 20:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:DASH, if you're going to use the dash, it should be an em dash, and be unspaced. {{ndash}} just won't do, and {{mdash}} violates the MoS entirely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that??? Reading this indicates otherwise, since I find mdash sucks for readability without nbsp's I avoid them in body text altogether. I am so displeased with this I'm actually questioning your competence with reverting. Silly talk? Yeah, I think me thinking that is silly too... but so is THREE EDITS (five counting talk) to fix a comma (which was part of the edit you reverted... twice) – for Stylistic reasons! I don't think that's the spirit of Wikipedia:Revert#Dos.

This is the longest minor edit of my Wikilife... actually that's not true... okay, the longest punctuation edit of my life. Hmmmm, that may not be true either, might have to rummage in the archives to verify that. Either way, I wasn't happy, but by now I'm mildly amused... buuutttt with less time for other Wikiedits. - RoyBoy 01:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing in Kay Sieverding's userspace

[31] I'm unclear why you would be removing content that Kay has added to her own userspace. It appears to be (mostly) content that has been removed and/or added to the article at various times. Could you please explain? Thanks. Risker (talk) 06:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've given it a bit of thought, and I am going to undo your reversion here. While I won't go out on a limb and suggest that Kay will be able to develop the perfect article in her user space, it is better to let her continue to experiment there than in the article proper, I think. I'll be logging off shortly, but please feel free to leave me a message (either here or on my page) if you feel strongly that the content she has copied there must be removed, and we can probably find a middle ground. I do understand your frustration with this situation. Risker (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

She copied the text of the article, without the footnotes; it has raw [1], rather than the <ref></ref> tags. If she works from it, it would never have a useful article, even if she learns WIkipedia guidelines. (There's also the GFDL question, as she didn't record the list of contributors.) But I supposed we can let her discover it won't help on her own. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, that is easily enough corrected, and I will do that now so that it is workable. As to the GFDL, it's one of those no-win questions. The theory is that this is a temporary page being used for limited work and will be moved and merged into the "real" page in the future, full history and all. If that doesn't happen, the user page will just be deleted, in which case the history is a bit of a moot point. There isn't really a good way to copy a history of an existing article, as far as I can tell, although I will make a few inquiries. Risker (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Linked dates

Just curious as to what the "blatant misrepresentation of established policy" there was with Template:Linked dates? I had proposed it as a talk-page template that could help to educate editors about linked dates and help start discussions about articles with linked dates. There are some editors that are taking a brute-force approach to removing dates without discussing or even informing editors in advance. I felt that the template—which I had not transcluded anywhere—was neutrally worded regarding date links and could have helped to avoid some of the more contentious and confrontational aspects of editors unlinking dates. Further, I had only linked it from WT:MOSNUM where I had started a discussion to see if there might be consensus developed for using the template. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would have have been better if you had transcluded it into the talk page, and making it clear (in <noinclude> text) that it was not ready to go live.

Still, there doesn't seem to be consensus that the date links are supposed to be deleted. If you create the template in a non-transcludable version, we can discuss appropriate wording, but there's still dispute as to the guidelines it's supposed to be representing. (It's also a bad title for the template.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Carneycode edit

I refer to the quotes of several prominent publications referring to him as being on the forefront of modern comedy. Recently recognized by artists as diverse as Paul McCartney and Woody Allen. He even wrote the theme song for that Ask A Ninja viral hit. That's featured on everything from MythBusters to NPR. I think that this guy has made an impression on pop culture and the sources indicate it. Carneycode (talk) 07:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of those publications are clearly not prominent and your reference for "recognized" by Woody Allen shows nothing of the sort. It's possible, though, that some of your references are appropriate and indicated notablility. Please discuss on the AfD page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

2090

Replied on my page, a more informative response given there :). Regards, Blooded Edge ^Sign/_Talk 20:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory talk page headers

Hi Artur, I'm not sure why you used rollback to revert this edit. It seems reasonable and good faith. Best regards. Checkeroffacts (talk) 06:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not the template added is appropriate, the reverted edit lost the archive header. Not necessarly vandalism per se, but clearly disruptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Checkeroffacts and doubt whether that edit by Socrates2008 was reasonable and made in good faith. On 16 September, Socrates inserted what I think is an inappropriate template on this talk page in response to my edit of 3 September which simply corrected an obvious mistake in my entry (British 'FSO' official) and which added a link to my letter to The Guardian of 7 December 1988. IMO you were right to revert Socrates' edit. I am also somewhat doubtful about the motives of Checkeroffacts whose raison d'être (and contribution record) seems to be exclusively focused on me and on the articles I've edited.--PJHaseldine (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Without checking the specific edits, you adding a link to your letter is wrong, according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As I've said a number of times, in articles where I am an expert, I may not add references to my papers. I've avoided adding references (in articles) to my late mother's books, although that may be excessive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The {{TalkHeader}} template includes links to archives, so leaving the old header in would have been a duplication. So I'm not sure what the issue is here... Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It does, apparently, but the dated links were lost. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So not so "clearly disruptive" then, surely? Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly damaging (from the editor's point of view), but not clearly disruptive. Sorry. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem - I'd take a closer look next time too. Socrates2008 (Talk) 04:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

William Rodriguez

I noticed that you posted on this article in the past. Apparently some admins locked the thread to allow only the 2 attackers of Rodriguez to post in it. The article front page looks like a gossip page from DMZ or Entertainment Tonight. Inmaterial and inconsecuential garbage place by user Contrivance, even talking about internet forum gossiping. I thought this was frown upon by Wikipedia. I request the same right to also post internet gossip to counterbalance those views. User Jazz2006 who has publicly attacked Rodriguez and has presented a NPOV ( just read the discussion section) Has eliminated citation requests and reverted obvious cited and link supported testimonies. The page has become the user ground of only 2 people with the same agenda. How sad and yes you are missed there to offer counterbalance. 67.85.126.95 (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is only semi-protected; if you create an account, you'll be able to edit there after a few days and a few edits. (The number of days and edits are subject to change, but I think it's 3 days and 10 edits.) Edits to the talk page count.

But there are 3 editors, all making different bad changes to the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

September 11

This had to be a mistake. --Pwnage8 (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The target article was renamed, and I see no reason for the grammatically incorrect phrasing to remain. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Should I voice my opinion?

Hello, I would like to know if an editor is under review for possible adminship but that review doesn't appear on everyone's watchlist to participate, is it still okay to make a comment or ask a question? Crackthewhip775 (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

On capitalization and references

I have been thinking the same, why doesn't Wikipedia use the official capitalization? I have restored the changes, and have fixed the Ph.D. link. Thanks for notifying me. About the references, I had thought cite was for books and for more detailed references, and plain ref was for citing websites without extra details. So which one is more appropriate? Cheers. — Orion11M87 (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay so, I will be using the simpler version for refs for websites. I wish there where good tools (which work on Mac too) to automatize a lot of repetitive processes. Cheers! — Orion11M87 (talk) 05:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

CfD of deaths by age

Just letting you know, the idea of categories showing death by age was something was something that me and several other editors agreed to and came to a concensus about following a discussion.

There's no evidence of that, although I admit I don't know quite where to look for it. If there isn't consensus to delete, I'd approve of the categories being filled only from the infobox template. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

1993

Why did you remove my edit on 1993 about the all-time low silver price? Apl2007 (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It seemed not notable to me. (I'm also not sure if it's correct. Is this all-time low in inflation-adjusted prices?) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, inflation-adjusted (using CPI calculations). Apl2007 (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

IP check

I've never requested a check. Do you think we have a strong case for requesting it or should we be patient and gather more evidence? —Cesar Tort 00:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not an expert. The style seems more similar to B than to AT/RE, except that he/she is not accusing the editors of being paedophiles. On the other hand, the sources are still bad. I think there's enough evidence for a check, although it wouldn't necessary be a violation if RE isn't banned; and I don't think he is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated . . .

on the subject brought up by User:Kotniski over on the talk page for 2000s. I can go either way, but I would like to hear from someone who not only regularly looks in on that page, but is also level-headed. Unschool (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

February 17, 2009

Hi Arthur Rubin. Did you see the original redirect?!?! I totally agree that it should have been deleted, and that the one I substituted should also be. But, given the number of articles by that editor that I have proposed for deletion, I thought a more reasonable redirect would be a better approach. Bongomatic (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. Unfortunately, Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year guidelines specify no future events should be listed in those articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip . . . my point was simply that I didn't want to be the one to {{Prod}} or RfD it--not that I thought it deserved a different fate. Bongomatic (talk) 07:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Bongomatic, I'm not the only victim of your deletion-proposing mania. You have probably proposed a million* articles for deletion by now, as 90% of your edits to Wikipedia are proposing deletion. A couple of your deletion proposals of articles have been disagreed with, such as storm train, as User: Runningonbrains, has said that the tag was not appropriate for that article, and it was a merging concern, not a deletion concern, and that proves my point that you focus solely on the deletion policy, because you find every possible excuse to delete articles, and thank goodness you're not an administrator, as you would have wiped out a large fraction of the database. And the one to shouting match, User:Colonel Warden said that the nomination was vague, and does not establish the reason why it can't be improved in accordance to the editing policy, which proves my point that you find every possible excuse to delete articles. I know you may not want to admit to your mistakes, but you should really consider the other policies before requesting deletion of articles. *Very likely not a million, but that's just a figure of speech. -- IRP ☎ 00:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Merging concern

Instead of merging, having a brief paragraph about the main article is better, because in the future, when the article gets expanded, it would simply be too much information in one place, and it should be divided into subcategories. Imagine what it would be like if someone tried to merge the article supercell into thunderstorm. That's the purpose that the {{mainarticle}} template serves. -- IRP ☎ 00:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

But nobody uses "storm train", and we don't have a distinguishing characteristic. If the merged article were to be subdivided, it should be along different lines than that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

How about Thunderstorm-training? It seems to be more common on a search. -- IRP ☎ 00:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello? -- IRP ☎ 02:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP

My read of WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material is that if any editor contends that any statement in a BLP article is dubious and is also not adequately sourced, that statement should be struck from the article. Would you concur? —  X  S  G  00:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me step back a second. Your response could indicate that you agree or that you accept my position. Since we've been on the opposite ends of a debate, recently, my comment could have been mis-interpreted to think that I'm perpetuating that debate. I'm not; I am genuinely interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter, if you think I'm being overzealous in interpreting the WP:BLP policy. —  X  S  G  01:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

My position would be that we can say something about a living person if there is evidence and there is no conceivable reason he would object. In this case, some of the material is unsourced or unverified, as the creators of the article don't know how to use references (for instance, pointing to an index page of a newspaper rather than an article page), but there is no objection. In this article, we have a number of instances where Brently (is claimed to have) appeared in a production, but the article claims he wrote the production. Fine. In that field, it's common for the author being the only one willing or able to perform the production. Now, in general, I have doubts about a calendar entry being reliable, but, aside from that, we have some evidence of the facts as proposed by the principle authors, so perhaps they should be included with evidence, not just those with sources.

In any case, I didn't want to gut the article if there is any chance it is to be kept, as long as the subject has no conceivable objections. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That's reasonable: your objections are with the "quality" of the sources, not with the article's claims. I'll put back some of the stuff I started ripping out. —  X  S  G  02:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

2000s Name Problem

Per your recommendation here, I was curious as to your thoughts on whether a merge would be more appropriate, or simply take the article to AfD. The PROD was removed with no explanation (surprise surprise) by the creator. GlassCobra 09:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there's information in the Problem article which should be in 2000–2009, so a merge may be appropriate if the information wasn't taken from the original 2000s article. The question of the name of the Problem is separate; it probably should be 2000s name contraversy (but spelled correctly). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Pro se talk

[32] Yes, I understand and genuinely appreciate your frustration. Would you consider refactoring this, though? It's just a bit too personal, I think. I'll be working on this particular project in about 3 hours. Your work, as well as that of Non Curat Lex and now Famspear, has made a big difference, and I appreciate your patience through the upheaval. Risker (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. It's not helpful, except in an RfC against Kay, and maybe not even then. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's technically "not right" per various WP guidelines (Risker is definitely right) but I'll be darned if it 'aint the truth. (I hope that the initial posting of the since-overwritten remarks was de-stressing and emotionally satisfying for you as the writer; it was certainly de-estressing and emotionally satisfying for me as the reader, although maybe not to th same extent). Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if Kay fixes a typo here or there but when she makes sweeping changes to the article, I have to put my foot down. I think her edits today needed to to be reverted, but I don't want to go charging off it doesn't reflect the conensus. Non Curat Lex (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you're fine. I wasn't going to revert all Kay's edits, but if you feel there's anything wrong with an edit or edit set, I have no problem with your reverting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's my present concern: she effectively reverted my second-to-last revert. Since her gfes are disruptive, but not patent vandalism, it is not my place to police it alone; I'll be 3RRed pretty quickly *if* she keeps it up. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time for a user RfC. We had an article RfC which seems to have gone against Kay, which she is ignoring, for the most part. I really don't think we could get an article ban without getting specific discussion, even though there's been a fair amount in (now archived) threads in the article talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are correct. I have never participated in a user RfC befre. Let me go read about it, and then I'll try to get started (or, if you beat me to it, I'll jump in). Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have created the user rfc here.

I think the most value in the User RfC is to generate "history" - it doesn't seem likely that it will prompt change on Kay's part, since she's received enough advice and criticism that ignoring an RfC won't take much of a leap. Even with my limited role I find the whole thing a little exhausting to keep up with, and getting behind makes it harder to chime in or help in a substantial way. Exhausting editors with huge volume edits may be an unintentional strategy on her part, but it does seem to be having its standard effect. Avruch ^T 18:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You just have to put the pants on one leg at a time It seems overwhelming from far away, but when you get down to it, it's manageable. In any case, I'm not sure a user rfc is appropriate; what we really need is topic ban for Kay Sieverding, and I don't think a User RfC has the authority to impose that kind of restriction. Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Notification

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at Talk:Training (meteorology).
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{newmessages}} template.

I would like to know why you aren't replying. -- IRP ☎ 22:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any logical support for your position. Do I need to repeat my opposition to your new proposed article without a defining difference from the existing one? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete these references from the pro se page?

1.)Why did you delete these references?

"The U.S. Constitution extends the power of the U.S. Judiciary to: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.. However, some people think that the word "citizens" should not apply to pro se litigants in the court citation needed and a few years before the U.S. civil war, in Dred Scott v. Sandford the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the legality of slavery under the same constitution by declaring that ex slaves could never be citizens even though they were extended full voting rights in five of the original states. "

2.)Why did you delete this summary of table?

" States that explicitly recognize a right to self-representation (without an attorney) in their constitution or statutes include Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Tennessee, Utah and the District of Columbia. States that use the words “every person” or “every subject” include Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. States that use the words “every man” include Delaware, Maryland, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota. " (summarizes table)

3.) Why did you delete this reference?

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addresses the rights of the self-represented litigant in Rule 17 "The court must appoint a guardian ad litem — or issue another appropriate order — to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action"

Do you not think that the words "incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action" applies to pro se litigants? If so why don't you just supply a reference as requested?

4.) Why did you remove the request for a reference from the statement "While this creates double standard, citation needed The Judicial Counsel justifies it based on the idea that "Judges are charged with ascertaining the truth, not just playing referree... A lawsuit is not a game, where the party with the cleverest lawyer prevails regardless of the merits."

5.) Why did you remove this reference:

"although the court's decision required processing of a 150 page hard to understand complaint written by an attorney in Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co (which was cited by 40 circuit courts and the U.S. Supreme Court in MONROE ET AL. v. PAPE ET AL., 81 S. Ct. 473, 365 U.S. 167)."

6.) Why did you remove this Supreme Court reference:

"The United States Supreme Court ruled "[n]o technical forms of pleading or motions are required,” and Rule 8(f) provides that “[a]ll pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.” Given the Federal Rules’ simplified standard for pleading, “[a] court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). If a pleading fails to specify the allegations in a manner that provides sufficient notice, a defendant can move for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) before responding. Moreover, claims lacking merit may be dealt with through summary judgment under Rule 56. The liberal notice pleading of Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim. "

7. Why did you remove this reference (posted by someone I don't know):

http://www.representyourselfincourt.org With a free e-book, links to online resources by state, and also motions, briefs, pleadings and other helpful documents available for you to view, download, and edit, this may be a very helpful resource.

This website touches on lawsuits, divorce and custody, criminal, civil, and estate issues, and may help those who can't afford an attorney and are forced to represent themselves in court.

8. Why did you remove these 13 references?

"The wording " which requires a judge to “accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding . . . the right to be heard according to law.” is used in many state codes including Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, New Jersey, , Nevada Wisconsin Pennyslvania, Virgina, Rhode Island, Washington State, West VirginiaUtah,

9. Why did you leave in: " Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure address the rights of the self-represented litigant in several places"? Where are the rights of self-represented litigants referred to in these rules? kay sieverding (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

We have consensus that you should not edit the pro se page, except to correct obvious errors. As for specifics.

1. Is OR. You're adding a specifically unsourced comment that a court case and rulings are relevant to the article when they are not obviously so.
2. The second sentence is clearly irrelevant. The first might be relevant, but I don't see a real reason to include it.
3. May be relevant, but it requires some WP:SYN to get there.
4. Clearly irrelevant.
5. Clearly irrelevant.
6. Possibly marginally relevant, but it needs a source as to relevance.
7. Spam. No evidence of notability, no evidence of accuracy, little evidence of existence. (And it wasn't yours, was it?)
8. Clearly irrelevant, and removed specifically as such by at least 3 editors.
9. Finally, something which may be a problem. Not having a copy of the rules with me, I can't confirm it's in there. But 7+ out of 9 isn't bad.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Decadebox

I think I've got it working correctly now. Let me know if you spot any errors or anything you think ought to be changed. Similarly with milenniumbox, centurybox and (shortly) year nav.--Kotniski (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

moloch

My Edit

Also in 2000, Jones and assistant Mike Hanson infiltrated the Bohemian Grove and filmed the opening weekend ceremony, known as the Cremation of Care, a mock human sacrifice in front of a 40' stone owl, which has been identified as moloch.

Your Revert

Also in 2000, Jones and assistant Mike Hanson infiltrated the Bohemian Grove and filmed the opening weekend ceremony, known as the Cremation of Care, a mock human sacrifice in front of a 40' stone owl, which he believes has pagan origins.

Comment

I think you might of acted in haste Authur. The difference is that my version increases the information without increasing the word count significantly. As to moloch being capitalised, that is probably correct and is the only part of the revision that infers a minor degree of disrespect, and can of course be changed as a minor edit.

As to your comment "we need a cite", is that not a mistake ? Are there not common sense limits on citiation, so that I would not have to prove by citation that a statue of the virign mary or mars the god of war ?

I see form your biography page that you have a jewish heritage, I dare to comment further as might say something rude. So I will await your reply in good faith.

Evadinggrid (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to specify who has identified (the owl) with Moloch (or actually, looking at our article, perhaps a lower-case definition was intended). For what it's worth, from my comparative mythology course, I don't recall Moloch being an owl, nor is there any indication of it in our article.

And, under the circumstances, yes, a cite is needed. I remember (from the old Testament) that Moloch is a bull.

It should be pointed out that, as a Jew, I am not allowed to worship other gods (the commandment is usually translated as "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me"), but I'm allowed to speculate as to their existence and modes of worship. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well to be brutaly frank, these occult types think nothing of mixing fact with fiction. The biblical accounts focus quiet correctly on the evil acts. They saw people who practiced different primative religions as having similarities and would interchange labels.

A modern example would be lucifer and satan worshipers would be described as one religon of devil worshipers. They would recieve howls of protests from the actual paractioners and adherents who dont recognise the term devil, and see themselves as distinct groups. They would not even acknowledge the term Devil as anything more than jewish christain ignorance.

The act itself, defines behond despute exactly what the bulk of the practioners belive they are worshipping. However, why is it a statue of an Owl, and not that of a man with a bull's head you might ask. Well they base there 'esoteric reasoning' on modern occultisim (steal, lie and plaugerise). They identifiy the Owl as Lillith, by King James Bible 'translation' from the night demon of jewish folk tales. Of course, what you have here is an example of that age old phrase "at each level it is a different lie". Should you bother to follow the trail you will actualy find Maths, Astronomy and Time. But, that would be to place poison in a brain better employed doing real math.

My suggestion is that it is phrased in a neutral tone. It is not really Jones that identifies the owl as moloch, but the occultists. From a personal perspective your ancestors had the right idea, which just goes to show that genocide is not always a bad thing and the exception proves the rule. I would not want to place links or give any oxygen of publicity to Thelmic thinking or encourage anyone to read any grimoires like Waite's which could be used for citations. I'd suggest that if a reader really wants to know, they can start at the wikipedia entry for Moloch and find there own version of the truth.

My english skills are not that great, perhaps you can take the above and make an appropiate edit.

PS Incidentaly I hope you have spread your finances and understand fractional reserve banking. Evadinggrid (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Arthur ?

Evadinggrid (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Jones identified on air today the sacrifice action is molech and the owl is lillith . Evadinggrid (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Of interest

Check it out. rootology (C)(T) 18:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not revert contributions with properly referenced reliable sources as you did on Inflation.

Please do not revert contributions with properly referenced reliable sources as you did on Inflation.PennySeven (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. You entered the same material 6 times. Pick one location and add it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry. I think there is a slight misunderstanding here.

1. I put the main contribution back but in the wrong spot.

2. I simply changed the word reduce to erode. I change one word to what was agreed before. One word. I did not put the whole contribution a second time.

3. I think I put another part of the contribution back, but did not note that the closing ref code was not there.

4. Then I noted that the main contribution was in the wrong spot and I moved the main contribution to the right spot.

5. You seem to be right on this one. I seem to have double clicked and the same change went thru again. So it seems to me. Sorry.

6. One the one I added </ref> that was missing from a reference.

7. I put the Cost of living section back.

I am sorry, but these were honest attempts to put contributions that were previously agreed and accepted that I contributed and then took off in a fit when the editor Lawrencekhoo accused me of having some real life interest/gain from these posts.

How do you suggest I put them back. There are actually five different paragraphs in three sections.

What do you suggest?PennySeven (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There are actually three locations:

On the first one after The Austrian school there are two paragraphs: about inflation and constant payments and another about inflation and historical cost non-monetary items.

Then at the bottom of the advantages from inflation sections there was a statement about inflation eroding the value of the government debt.

Then at the bottom of that section there was a sub-section about Cost of Living Allowances.

What do you suggest I do?PennySeven (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see you actually said: add at most once. Ok, I will do that. Thank you.PennySeven (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I added it once, deleted a wrong reference and added one full stop??.

Sir, I respectfully added the contribution once, as you requested.

Then I deleted a wrong reference that was inadvertently included in the first once-off addition.

Then I noticed that a full stop was missing at the end of the statement. I added one full stop.

I did not add the full contribution three times.

PennySeven (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You added it twice. Again. I removed both, for consideration. "Eroded" should only be used once, IMHO. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense?

Reconsider what you said. You can list expected future events, including "digital television transition in the United States". -- IRP ☎ 20:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Only in year articles (2009), not date articles (February 17), per the respective project guidelines. There's no reason to have Feburary 17, 2009 (or 17 Feburary 2009) at all, as it's not that significant an event. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can see what you mean, I actually agree with the delete now. -- IRP ☎ 21:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's already deleted. -- IRP ☎ 21:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Complex system

Hi, I just removed the links to Adam M.Gadomski and to Socio-cognitive systems for the second time in the complex system article. I though you would like to know this, as stated on your talk page. Maybe you can take a look. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Graph isomorphism

What's the reason for your last edit at Graph isomorphism, adding the non-RS tags, or was it a mistake? I don't think anybody has a problem with the paper by Zemlyachenko et al. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I think that was the wrong paper. I thought one of Tim32's had found its way back into the article. I'll revert, if you haven't already done so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

IEC prefixes

I agree with you that the votes are not important in themselves – only the arguments behind them. My point is that there if there is no (calm and reasoned) discussion there can be no consensus. If you look through the archives you will see that Greg_L’s tactics of ridicule - supported by Fnagaton and tolerated by Headbomb - have prevented such a discussion time and time again. For example, you may wish to take a look at events the last time I brought this up at WT:MOSNUM. My arguments were supported by approximately 5 editors and opposed by a similar number, but it was impossible to have a discussion about it because of Greg_L’s ridicule tactics towards those editors who disagree with him:

• This MOSNUM talk page has officially been declared a “no whining zone”,
• “I want my IEC prefixes! I want my IEC prefixes! We had them for three years and I want them baaaaack!. Well… tough and
• Well, Anomie, do you feel better now after that little fourth-graders’ rant? ,

while an editor who agrees with him is cheered on:

• Hallelujah, amen. Pass the collection plate and let’s get outa here.

The net result is to discourage meaningful discussion, giving a false impression of consensus. That is why I requested mediation, which Greg_L refused, presumably because it would cramp his style. The purpose of my note was simply to point out that without debate there can be no consensus.

By the way, in his response he and Fnagaton misrepresent my words time and time and again. For example, look at the way he takes your words and attributes them to me. He also selectively quotes the 7-3 vote for the present wording while conveniently omitting to mention that all three oppose votes were objecting to one very specific piece of text, but no attempt was made to take these objections into account. Whether he does so deliberately only he can tell, but I have no intention of engaging in debate with him without a mediator present, and I can assure you I am not alone in this view. And this is precisely the problem that is created by his tactics. They lead to the kind of consensus that a sergeant major achieves on a military parade ground, suppressing debate instead of encouraging it. Thunderbird2 (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thunderbird2 stop misrepresenting the situation because as the talk archives prove you are not writing any accurate claims. The only poster who is misreprenting the facts is you. The only poster who is not making reasoned discussion is you because you keep on misrepresenting all of the other editors who have refuted your arguments. The link you gave where you claim five other posters support you does not show what you claim because actually the result on you posting your statements is that your statements are weaker than the already stronger arguments in the talk archive and also that what you posted was a copy paste of already refuted weak arguments. Basically what you posted was nothing new and certainly was not substantive, the talk archive demonstrates that. There can only be calm and reasoned discussion when you stop trying to misrepresent other editors, your talk pages are proof enough that you are misrepresenting other editors because you keep on trying to re-write history to suit your own ideas. For example you misrepresent a 3RR report against you for edit warring for which you were blocked and had the multiple unblock requests declined as "bullying" when actually you are at fault, the case even went for review and every admin found no problem with the block and the denial on your unblock. Also, reasoned discussion can only take place when you actually start making valid arguments because so far you have not done so. Every attempt was made by Headbomb to take into account valid objections to the vote you cite and as the talk archive shows you repreatedly refused to answer questions with any kind of valid reply. Since you and others failed to provide any kind of valid substantive argument then the no votes had little to no bearing on the consensus. This is because weak refuted statements, like yours, do not have to be included in consensus, no matter how many times you try to vote no your statements are still weak. Weak refuted points of view are not included in consensus for guidelines because guidelines need to be strong and not weakened by weak points of view. Mediation was refused because there is no need since your actions Thunderbird2 are at fault here. Thunderbird2 what you are doing is trying to use ad hominem, attacking other editors by misrepresenting them, instead of tackling the real arguments. So Thunderbird2, once again, stop right now trying to misrepresent other editors and try to start posting valid arguments. Your repeated attempts to misrepresent other editors is demonstrative of disruptive editing which is opposite to the aims of Wikipedia editing. Consider it a challenge Thunderbird2 that you stop writing about how you think other editors "are bad people" and instead you start only posting valid substantive arguments. Fnagaton 15:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Date page cleanup

Before I put in a bot request to unlink the years (death year under births section, etc.) in the date articles, would you review the conversation here so that isn't just me saying that it should be done. If you disagree, I'm fine with that, I just think it's the right way to go if no one objects. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 17:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts

I don't think you've been notified, so I thought I'd let you know that there is a thread about you, and whether some of your recent edits to Talk:Graph isomorphism are racist, over Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. I think it's a storm in a teacup and doesn't need any more input, but I also thought you should be made aware. All the best, Verbal chat 19:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't have said it, but it is true that Russian (and Soviet) journals seem not to have developed the tradition of intellectual honesty that (most) western European journals have. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Year nav

Having got the protection level temporarily reduced, I've made my proposed changes to the template. Since it now handles all years (including BC), I've also edited {{Year nav BC}} and {{Year nav 1st century CE}} to use {{Year nav}} (so all year articles, once updated in the cache, are now effectively using Year nav). Let me know if you see anything amiss, so we can repair it before the admins fully proetct the template again.--Kotniski (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to explain to me how the dr templates work (and I hope you have them protected). You gave me a little scare when in the year nav doc file, as the display didn't match the claimed usage, but it had <nowiki>{{year nav|100}}</nowiki> and {{year nav|101}}.... I don't see a problem with {{year nav}} if {{dr}} works as specified, although I'm not sure how "13" gets into it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we'll have to get dr and all the other subtemplates protected I suppose (or at least semi-protected, so we can still work on them - or are you an admin?) The "13" is a somewhat arbitrary parameter I added, based on the observation that single digit numbers look odd as years unless they have "AD" added, particularly if mixed with BC years. So in 12 AD and below (where single digits start appearing in the box), the years have the parameter "ysa" instead of "ys", which causes the addition of the AD (unless there's a BC already present, obviously).--Kotniski (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss the templates, including appropriate names, at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Years, as Decades, Centuries, and Millennia were never created. (As an aside, has List of decades been updated for the decade names BC?)

Yes, I am an admin, (at least for the moment; there have been RfAr's proposed against me). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, have updated List of decades. I'll ask for the templates to be protected again, since as an admin you'll be able to edit them as necessary. In fact I'm thinking of applying for adminship myself, purely because I often find myself trying to maintain templates which get protected, but I'm not sure if that will be accepted as valid motivation.--Kotniski (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Dewey Nicks

This article is categorically not a valid CSDA7 candidate and it is not seemly that you would backbite against the removal in a prod, especially when as an admin, you are really expected to understand and enforce at least the clearest mandates of the deletion policy. I actually misspoke when I removed the prod. Prod is for non-controversial deletion, and the deletion of this article on the basis of notability would not be that. CSD A7 requires only an assertion of importance. A person whose article claims he has been published in Vogue, Vanity Fair, Harper's Bazaar, W, and GQ, directed commercials for major companies like Tommy Hilfiger and Hugo Boss among others, and was the director of Slackers (a real commercial film released into major theatres and reviewed by Newsweek, the Village Voice, Ebert and Roeper, etc.) is so far from meeting A7 that there's really little to say other than that the assertion is obvious and axiomatic. I suspect that if taken to AfD this article would survive, solely on the basis of what's in the article now, much less what would be revealed after further research, which further shows how far afield from a valid A7 subject it is. That is not to say that the article would survive. Maybe, despite his directing chops, he has not received much coverage in reliable sources. But that is a valid subject of inquiry on the merits. Not for speedy deletion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Arthur, but I agree with Fuhghettaboutit. The article most definitely does not satisfy CSD A7. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe

I don't think I have reinserted the comments - I took out info about debt [33] (and before this weekend also on income [34]). I have no objection to the removal of his comments about Boston Tea Parties. I would also support removal of any comments he might have about the Price of tea in China - or as I better know the expression on the price of fish ;-) --Matilda ^talk 23:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing personal. The article had been edited so fast that 3 people should have been blocked for 3RR already, although only one was. Do I need to apologize further? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No - just wanted to clarify and I think we don't disagree entirely (double negative intended) Regards --Matilda ^talk 23:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Puzzled on Joe Wurzelbacher

Hello. Your edit on the Joe Wurzelbacher article has me puzzled. The edit summary states "remove per WP:UNDUE; the tax lien is clearly relevant to his views on taxes" but you actually deleted the "clearly relevant" section in question. Perhaps you meant to say irrelevant? Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I deleted his views on taxes, due to the claim made that the lien is a BLP violation. My assertion is that, if his statement on taxes appears, so should the lien, but I'm more neutral on whether the statement should appear at all. (I think I said that on the talk page, also.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:BLP/N#Joe_the_Plumber Inclusionist (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Division algebra reversion

Hi Arthur,

You just reverted an edit I did to improve the style and the content of the page cited in the headline. The linguistic style of the original was truly terrible, so those changes should not be an issue.

I realized I made a mistake of content of my own in my error correction, and was in the process of correcting it when I encountered an edit conflict with your reversion. I have now effectively reverted your reversion and corrected the mistake I made, as well as included a reference citing Wolfram's math world definition of a division algebra.

I once knew, long ago, an Arthur Rubin with exceptional math abilities. I see from your talk page you are probably not the same man. The Arthur I knew would see in a flash both the original page I edited was incorrect, as well as the incorrect aspect of my initial correction, but I see no evidence of extraordinary mathematical aptitude in your talk page.

It is my belief the introduction is now correct, although the remainder of the page is in dire need of style improvements. It is my hope you will leave the improvement, for that is the intent of the wikipedia, isn't it? i.e. gradual improvement through collective consensus.

In matters of math, there is such a thing as unambiguous right and wrong. Many of the wikipedia math articles are in great need of improvement. I never trust them when I need to learn something I don't know because so many of the ones I do know are confusing or wrong. When I do see something I know is wrong, I correct it, in the hope that eventually, all wikipedia math articles may be trusted.

Best regards, always and forever, I will remain anonymous [the url is public] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.153.115 (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I could see that your "correction" had several errors in it. It's possible you fixed them, but I'll revert it again if it's wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Change weasel to weasel-inline

Thanks--I couldn't find that in WP:weasel, and I knew a function like that existed. I appreciate your sharp eye. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

Hi, Thanks for your comment at limit of a function. You may recall that the page (ε, δ)-definition of limit contains a blunt statement of the epsilon-delta definition in all its naked beauty so that those who with to compare it with the non-standard definition can easily do so. The page (ε, δ)-definition of limit is actually well-visited. There were close to 100 hits yesterday and comparable though lower numbers for the past month or so. The discussion at the talk page of limit of a function seems to converge to a merge, which I think would amount to a bit of an obfuscation. The page limit of a function starts with a lengthy discussion of approximation theory which is the traditional way of buffering the intrinsic and irreducible difficulty of the Weierstrass approach. Moreover, limit of a function tends to present the standard approach as the only possible one. Now certainly a majority of practicing mathematicians today to adopt this view. However, a significant minority do not. I think wiki guidelines are consistent with presenting a view of a significant minority, which are above POV pushing. Your input at the talk page of limit of a function would be appreciated. Katzmik (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI

• Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#RFC_on_Joe_the_Plumber_tax_lien_on_house Inclusionist (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Undo

Why did you undo my edit to Training (meteorology)? -- IRP ☎ 22:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say: "If it's uncommon, it shouldn't be placed that prominently", but I clicked an arrow which submitted the change, for some reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I was concerned that people will be wondering what happened. I checked the article page view statistics, and "Storm train" still has more page visits than "Training (Meteorology)". So that means that most users are still looking it up as "Storm train", probably because it is less to type than "Training (meteorology)" or "Thunderstorm training". So for the people who may think that they cannot find what they are looking for, and why it is no longer called "storm train", by adding that sentence, it will inform people that it is uncommon, but sometimes referred to by that name. -- IRP ☎ 22:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC), modified 22:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Will you reply? Should I place the sentence somewhere else? It is a fact. -- IRP ☎ 22:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC), minor modification: 22:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Storm train" may have more visits because it sounds interesting, not because people are looking for the term. And that is not a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles

Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ? Thanks ARP Apovolot (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for all of the edit conflicts

Eventually technology will make edit conflicts an annoyance of the past. Sorry about that. Inclusionist (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP privacy policy for limited public figures

I think that the current deadlock on Joe the plumber is due to unclear BLP policy on limited public figures. I've made a proposal to clarify the policy here. Since you are one of the parties involved in the dispute, this is a notification for your input on the proposed policy clarification. VG ☎ 10:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hemanshu

Centralizing the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Hemanshu. MBisanz ^talk 12:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ralph Nader Edit

Is there a reason you reverted the edits to the Ralph Nader page? The three sentences were relevant to his 2008 campaign for President and cited reliable references. The focus of his campaign and the fact that he has potentially broken a Guiness World record for campaigning in the process are two noteworthy pieces of information for a third party presidential candidate. Just wondering. Sigmundane (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the alleged "Guiness World" record for campaigning as notable. The focus of his campaign (if he, in reality, has one) probably is. He certainly has the US record for campaigning for a Presidential candidate who does not have a mathematical chance of winning, not being on enough ballots. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I summarized the info that you deleted previously (as you requested on the talk page) yet you still reverted it. Without this information it appears that Nader did not even announce his candidacy. Copana2002 (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't summarized; you included all of a previous version, including the unsourced "focused". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not make an effort to summarize the info yourself, since in its current form it appears that Nader is not even running for president? I'm not trying to start a fight here, it just seems a little excessive to delete a whole section because the last sentence is improperly sourced. Copana2002 (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If I were to summarize it, I would have left one sentence, instead of the 4 paragraphs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

2070s

Hi! It was not an automated patch, I fixed it by manually running the corresponding command. Unfortunatelly, I don't know any way to automatically fix it. TXiKi (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What is your problem

Dear Arthur,

It looks like you are not an expert in Electron structure of the Atoms. You are deleting the links that have been viewed by thousands of people, including experts since last spring and early summer.

The web site in question was viewed and approved by Nobel Prize winner Dr. Roald Hoffmann. What is your problem?

All information presented there is correct and works. If you do not understand it I can explain, but stop removing the links, please. Drova (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If Dr. Hoffmann had designed the web site, and it said that on the site, that would take it out of WP:ELNO#11. Otherwise, you (the web site content author) would need to be a recognized expert in the field. I don't see that as accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you want to "throw the book" at this issue. However, you failed to pinpoint exactly what is incorrect about it. Can you intelligently explain what exactly is incorrect in the content of that link?Drova (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What I said. Why does it not violate WP:ELNO#11, as it's your site, and you are not an expert in the field (the guideline goes on to suggest that only experts with their own Wikipedia article should be considered.) I think it's bogus, but, even if it were correct, it shouldn't be used as an external link. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi ArthurRubin - I just wanted to stick my head in and see what was going on here. Can I be of service? Non Curat Lex (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The editor in question, and a few IP addresses which are undoubtably him, have been adding references to the website perfectperiodictable . com (spaced so that the link doesn't appear here), as if it were a usable web site describing a scientific theory. It's clearly a personal web site, which should be sufficient for removal. I first saw it at Close-packing of spheres, which I found during the naming dispute on that article. It seemed clearly inappropriate there, and considering how inappropriate it seemed, I thought I'd see where else it was added.

1. Quantum number; if the site were acceptable, and were slightly rewritten, it might justify an alternate set of quantum numbers for the electron configuration, of n+l (increasing), l (decreasing), and m (neutral) (in terms of the energy of the orbital.)
2. Aufbau principle; clearly wouldn't fit, even if rewritten.
3. Electron configuration; if the site were acceptable, a possible link, as the analogy to the tetrahedral configuration (not "close-packing") could be a useful mnenomic device for the electron orbitals.

But the site is clearly not acceptable under WP:ELNO#11, and it has some pseudoscientific baggage.

It appears he's the only one who thinks it belongs. I had to be careful to avoid 3RR, so I had to use the {{dubious}} tag on the last round. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Error on Cook Levin theorem page

Dear Arthur, please join the discussion under CNF on the discussion page of Cook-Levin theorem. Vegasprof (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Help with the William Rodriguez Page

Mr. Rubin, I want you to check the page again. User Contrivance, like always has continued his non supported editing , NPOV, WikiNOCrystalBALL, etc. He complained to admin Charles Matthews and I received a warning. Not fair, I believe that it should have been all the way around, but then again, Mr.Mathews may not have all the time to go trough all the edits made by this user. After constant pointing by others, including you on his use of non wiki, npov, speculation and dubious websites, he has taken the complaint as the only form to hit back since he is constantly proved to be wrong. PLease do check again and if you can, communicate with Mr. Matthews about this whole issue. Fairness is what I am asking for, nothing more, nothing less. Thanks in advance.Celeronel (talk) 02:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Rubin, Celeronel's ideas of fairness are very peculiar, and include the privileges of 1) charging that any criticism of incompetent research or reasoning or grammar is racist, 2) posting from personal knowledge, 3) exemption from probable sockpuppetry and WP:COI and WP:AUTO issues, 4) failing to respond to questions about the rationale for peculiar and often ungrammatical edits, 5) mind-reading of the subject, unjustified inferences, advertising and, finally, 6) attempts of long standing at intimidation through attempted outing and threats to slander associates of the real life person he wishes Contrivance were. Celeronel claims he's asking for fairness. What he practices is thuggery. Ask Jazz2006. Contrivance (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 1#Template:2008 Boston Tea Party presidential candidate

Would you mind withdrawing this nomination so that all of these templates can be nominated? The Republicans, Democrats, and (I believe) each party listed on the Third party page have a similar - and similarly pointless - template that should be discussed/deleted all at once, imho. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I may withdraw it, as there are two other delete votes. I see your point, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'll put together a nomination for the other templates at User:Philosopher/Sandbox and put them up. I think I'll wait until the current TfD is done, though - one of my pet peeves is overlapping noms taking place at the same time ("Let's rely on that precedent...wait, it hasn't been decided yet!"). --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 11:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

On years articles

Hi Arthur, I have been wondering if awards should be unlinked or not. While Nobel prize has more links to sub prizes, the other prizes don't. Such as the Templeton Prize on the article 2000. So what should be used? (On WP policies, links are allowed in subtitles if the whole title is a link.) Thanks. — Orion11M87 (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a prize which typically only has one recipient per year should be a subheading; perhaps a Wikitable or an html dd list might be a more appropriate format, if we add more than one "minor" prize. But it probably should be a link. Rembmer, though, I was in favor of linking the dates of birth and death in biographical articles, so I may be more supportive of links than most. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think the best way would be to add all the awards to a single section called Awards. Should I go with section Awards? — Orion11M87 (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

SRA

'Cos you and PS were editing the section - what do you think of this wording? Emphasis is on the explanation, not the authors. Suggestions welcome, it's getting harder to write the page as all the crap I've read is starting to slosh together. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 14:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

30th Century

Why did you revert my edits to the 30th century article? Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It seemed to be an extension of the previous item, which already has too much detail. If I'm mistaken, I apologize. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it was a bit too detailed in the first place. I have re-introduced my information while paring down the original material. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Nao Kudo

In the AFD for this entry you specifically ask for cleanup/creation. That's not really what AFD is for. I suggest you search the Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan for help or some Category:Japanese Wikipedians instead. If you withdraw the nomination, I'll drop a copy of the article on your talk page after deletion -- if you think it's useful. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if she's notable, meaning AfD is appropriate. All I'm saying is that the article really doesn't say she's notable, and I haven't found a strong indication that she's notable in English-language materials. The only thing in it's (the article's) favor is that there's an apparently stable article on ja.wikipedia, although I wouldn't swear it's about her, and, even assuming good faith, there's no reason to assume that ja. and en. have the same notability standards. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

better place?

We're off topic there; perhaps you could point or create a new place where we can exchange few ideas about the subjecst we've just touched. Universalsuffrage (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

A volunteer request

Dear Arthur. I am submitting (an) RfA and if you could write an Op-Ed (Co-nom) on my contributions and understanding of Wikipedia, it would be very helpful. I have also asked Gwen Gale. Your time is really appreciated. I have learned a lot from you and I thank you for that. — Orion11M87 (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would help, considering the number of times that I've been blocked, but I'll certainly give it consideration. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. On blocks, I don't think it's a problem at all, considering few blocks, I believe were not fully justified and were 3rr. But considering you are a very good person is what matters. Mostly if not all, you understand the world in true meaning, you know the great damage done by mythologies and pseudoscience, and you are a skeptic. Oh, and have a PhD from Caltech, very nice. When I come to California in 2009, I will meet you. I am a String Theorist, and building the world's largest university (currently in planning and design stage, I will keep you informed via email). Sincerely, Orion11M87 (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Page move

Please move the title 2009 in video gaming to WP:YRS standard title 2009 in games, also the new title is required for the Template:C21YearInTopic. Thanks. — Orion11M87 (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

A problem is that the template at the bottom of the article points to dozens of "year in video gaming" articles. This needs further investigation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

september 11

there is no more proof that september 11 was an act of terrorism by al-Qaeda than there is that it was organised by the American government. it is a pity that someone of your power cannot see the fault in only being able to prove somethings truth by providing links to other media's opinions. you guys do an amazing job but one should always remember that with the role of 'speakinng the truth' comes a huge responsibility.

is it not obvious that there is a fault in trusting mainstream media to be the ones deciding what is the truth?

warren lewis south africa

--Worldwarwon (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid we disagree — meaning (1) the Wikipedia consensus, including myself, vs. (2) you and the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Please take it to the appropriate article talk page, if you want to deal with the matter further. I will not respond further here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Irrational Number Generator

I don't understand the article and don't really care if it stays or goes, but every time I turn around you've heaped another template upon it. Isn't nominating it for deletion enough? It may be difficult for the primary editor to assume your good faith since you have not offered any explanation on the talk page.--otherlleft (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added and deleted templated tags, although I see I need to add one more, POV#Title, or whatever it's called. I didn't check who added "too-technical", but it's not. I now see that the statement is trivially equivalent to Fermat's Last Theorem, but the name is not used anywhere in the real world, and the author has not provided any evidence that the statement appears anywhere in the real world. I provided most of what you might think is needed on the talk page in my {{prod}} reasons, which the author responded to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any justification for the factual accuracy being disputed. Yes, you backed off it being totally disputed, but isn't it polite to justify your reasons for disputing the facts? I don't expect to understand those reasons but I imagine the other editor might. I'm still not seeing a big assumption of good faith on your part here - although I'm aware that this is far from my specialty, I think I could spot civility and wikilove when I see it.--otherlleft (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Doh!

This revert. I should have done that in the 1st place. No way it's reliable source. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

MLM article

Hi Arthur. I see you removed the addition re Helmstetter that had been added to the MLM article. While I think it still needed work, your logic regarding the reason to remove it was a little strange given that it was in response to a quote from an anonymmous article on a self-published site that was talking only about Amway, not MLM generically. On what basis do you consider it valid to include that critique but not a response from a published expert on the topic? --Insider201283 (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

See my comment above. The source wasn't reliable. The sentiment of the text that was removed could be included if you can find a reliable source. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there's actually an internet archive version of it, i'll revert with that as source. In any case, the point remains - what makes the apologetics index page RS? It's an anonymous self-published article. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

An archive of the Amway wiki isn't any more reliable than the wiki. If there is other stuff there (pro or anti) with the same flimsy sources, then it should be treated in the same way and deleted. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the disagreement might be resolved by including any bias in the article text. "Amway representatives claim..." or something like that. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Helmstetter isn't an Amway rep. He's a PHD in motivational psychology and a published author on the topic of Amway, one of the world's largest MLMs. Still, I'm not so much concerned about him now as the AI reference in the first place. Reviewing their site they explicitly state - "You'll notice that we're not neutral"[35]. So we have an anonymous article on a self-published site that the maintainers themselves state is "not neutral". It may pass "external link" criteria, but I can't see an argument for it passing WP:RS.--Insider201283 (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you're right. That paragraph should be removed as well, unless a reliable source can be found. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph in question. We can probably stop hijacking Arthur's talk page now. Feel free to post on my talk page if there's any further problems with the article. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sewer Cover Barnstar

		The Sewer Cover Barnstar
		You have been awarded the Sewer Cover Barnstar because you can read through anything. You don’t know the meaning of attention deficit disorder, laugh in the face of boredom, and are wasting your talents if you don’t become a patent examiner.

• I award this to you, Arthur Rubin, with humbleness and awe. You’ve done what I truly can not. Further, as you read through the 1925 article, you made improvements to the article, exhibiting the best of true Wikipedian spirit. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Fringe Rewrite

Hi,

Do you know of any way to address OrangeMarlin's concern that it isn't transparent enough? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed delete of Serials, periodicals and journals

As i wrote there:

The article title brings together related terms that already exist in Wikipedia and then explains the difference. The distinction between serial and periodical is perhaps of some value on Serial (which includes all three - "serials include periodicals"[36]), so i've added it to that page. If anyone thinks it's important enough to add to publishing or library science go ahead and do so. Is there anything left for this page to do? --John_Abbe (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Note

Hello, I've noticed for the last several weeks you have been edit warring at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground and we operate under the principle of discussing changes to reach consensus. None of us own any of the pages on Wikipedia and edit warring, even if one is certain they are correct, is never acceptable. I fear if you do not stop edit warring that I will need to block you for disruption and edit warring. Happy editing. MBisanz ^talk 01:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The word "specific" was added without comment or specific consensus. (In fact, much of that section was added with only a limited consensus.) Why is it inappropriate to remove "specific" or appropriate to remove the {{disputed-section}} tag? I would be OK with the appropriate dispute tag being left on the section while the presence or absence of consensus is established. (I wouldn't be happy, as reversals, even of small sections of guidelines, should have been advertised outside the talk page of guideline.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that MBisanz seemed to leave identical notes to both myself and Tony1 within seconds of your note. I don't think the situation has gotten so bad that threats of blocks are necessary, but I guess I'm just more optimistic things can be worked out peacefully. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice that. I suspect, considering MBisanz's efforts in closing contraversial AfD's, that he won't be back here, but I think the present wording of the date section should stand for a bit. Still, no warning for Lightmouse.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ideally all changes should be made by discussion, however, after the first or second revert of a change, future aspects of that change should be discussed. The continued warring over words or tags at MOSNUM, besides being futile since ~50% of people involved will be unhappy, is damaging for editors trying to write articles with reference to the MoS and seeing it change back and forth each day. As to Lightmouse, afaik, he hasn't edited MOSNUM since it came off protection, as always I may be mistaken, but from what I can tell he is not involved in this most recent round on the issue. MBisanz ^talk 14:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

2013

Hello Arthur. Inaugurals are indeed held on Sundays. A private cermony is held January 20th; then a public one is held January 21st. The President of the United States (and the Vice President) will indeed be administered the oath of office on Sunday. The Constitution calls for January 20th (Sunday not withstanding). Eisehower & Reagan were sworn in on Sundays (privately), then publicly the next day. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, whoever assumes office in 2013. He/she (like his/her predessors) automatically become President (and Vice President) upon the start of his/her term (oath taking or not). GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As I noted on the talk page, our article said that the private taking of the oath (I wouldn't call it a ceremony) was done on Saturday or on the date legally set for the inauguration, with the formal ceremony on Monday. We can't say, with any certainty, that any ceremony is done on "Inauguration Day". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Eisenhower & Reagan wer sworn-in January 20 (privately)/January 21 (publicly) in 1957 & 1985 respectively. That's a fact. January 19th, is out of the question. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please reply only in Talk:2013, but you're wrong. If you insist on placing material which is unsourced and contraversial, the entire entry may need to be deleted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed in what you just did there. You continuing to ignore the Constituion & the Eisenhower, Reagan examples. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nick Savoy

Hi,

I saw you posting on the seduction community talk page and I thought you might be able to help out the community. One of the pages, Nick Savoy, is being deleted but we could use some votes to get the page back up. Could you help us out on that?

Thanks in advance. Your input is much appreciated. Coaster7 (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the notice, but I'm actually finding it questionable that the community is notable. Nonetheless, I find the community per the WP:CfD on Category:Seduction theorists, which I feel should not be deleted, but should be renamed. However, I'm generally honest, so I'm willing to vote against deletion of (articles on) people whom I think the world would be better off without (the people, not the articles). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You are perhaps unwittingly attempting to perpetuate subtle sabotage within the "conspiracy theory" article

It is Orwellianly interesting to note that 3 editors with perhaps mathematicalish coordination have reverted my changes with zero of them commenting about the nature and quality of those changes to the conspiracy theory article. The perhaps foolish appear to be sort of stuck in a mode whereby they attempt to portray true clarity as vandalism. For safe keeping I will post the definition of "conspiracy theory" from wiktionary as evidence that editors on wiktionary accept a definition of "conspiracy theory" that is similarish to the ones I have authored today:

conspiracy theory From wiktionary:

1. A hypothesis that alleges a coordinated group are and/or were secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including atempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. In notable cases the hypothesis contradicts what was or is represented as the mainstream explanation for historical or current events.

2. (dismissive) Hypothetical speculation that is dismissively represented as being untrue or outlandish.

Please do not revert my improvements again or you might be accused of violating wizarding laws. 208.59.112.152 (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it's an "improvement" (3 editors disagree), you've reverted to your preferred form 4 times already today. If you do it again after the warning, you will be blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If it is an improvement then that is definitely not vandalism regardless of disagreement so the "3 revert rule" does not apply and improvements should be encouraged so you should be blocked for being illogical? And technically I have not reverted more than one time today, each edit is different as I aimed even higher improvement wise everytime. Perhaps I will consult with a committee of good gender agnostic wizards to decide how to proceed against apparent though perhaps unwittingly evilish wizards and or how to proceed against the evilish subtle wikipedia controlish. 208.59.112.152 (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again. The three revert rule applies unless our actions are vandalism, and your are not. This is not the case. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Your sentences are inaccurate. Two or more groups of editors can all be making in good faith edits. If a small majority of three votes that 2 + 2 = 5 obviously they are wrong. Something has to be obviously vandalism for the 3 revert rule to apply and because I technically made only one revert today I have not violated that rule because of an additional reason. 208.59.112.152 (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have supported on Graph isomorphism. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. I did not see your reply to my notices on the talk page. --Tim32 (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. And I concur with the other replies to your "notices"; the text you propose, although possibly appropriate to the article in part, is misleading. Atomic graphs, in chemistry, have degree at most 8, and the graph isomorphism algorithm for graphs of bounded degree is polynomial. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you talk about? I did not write that GI problem is not polynomial (and for chemistry as well). What is "Atomic graphs"? Did you mean molecular graph? Anyhow the fact is that regular graphs are very important for chemistry. So, if you want to use Luks algorithm (as well as another algorithm) for chemical tasks you have to test a realization of this algorithm (the program) for regular graphs first of all. Also, the algorithm by Luks (for graphs of bounded degree) is not adopted for chemical compounds. For example, what about molecular with double bonds? Your assertion "graphs, in chemistry, have degree at most 8" is false for some molecular graphs (See, my note about Ferrocene Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 42#"Dubious reference" at Graph isomorphism (2) - edit war restarted!!!) and obviously it is false for some approaches, for example, for chemical reactions database. Also, you did not explain why you had deleted the info about SMILES?--Tim32 (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've warned Tim for inappropriate use of warning templates. If this continues, shunning may be a future strategy, but this would have to be outlined on the article talk page. Verbal chat 15:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It was not "Warning" -- I only used some reasons which may be similar with the template. Is it forbidden?--Tim32 (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Archiving message

You may want to update the archive message at the top of this page - I thought it possibly rude to do it myself. Seeing as it slipped past you for nearly the entire year, perhaps a more general version would suit better?--otherlleft (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The bot I used before MiszaBot updated it automatically. I changed "2007" to {{CURRENTYEAR}}; not precisely correct, as (according to reports) it archives according to the last datestamp, rather than the current date, but.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's the price we pay for asking machines to do the work for us, isn't it? They're terribly stupid . . . --otherlleft (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:Subst

Why not on their defining pages? We want them to be substituted at all times (see {{unsigned}} for why; the main reason is the large note saying "this template must be substituted"). Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 02:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

We want people to be typing {{subst:unsigned}}, not {{unsigned}}. Otherwise you get a massive group of pages like this which are draining resources. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 02:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverted Changes to Recurrence Relations

I was wondering why my edit to Recurrence Relations was reverted. The closed form solution for a degree-2 recurrence, might not be critical to the article, but I believe it is notable enough to merit inclusion.

I'm sorry; I should have given a specific reason...I just don't agree it's notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Note

Hello, Arthur Rubin. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic WP:AN#Review. Thank you.MBisanz ^talk 20:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

SoCal Fires

Stay safe. I also live in Southern California, so I'm watching a fire on a ridgeline above me right now, but nowhere near as close as you are. Email me whenever you can, we ought to meet up someday. I'm regularly in the OC for business. Anyways, get your butt out of harm's way. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha HA!

Just to say IT IS A HALF, you contradictory oaf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.41.134 (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

oh, and its 2/3 btw.... Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Gaby De Wilde

Would you like to bet that the current outbreak of SPA's editing Pantone and Meyers is him again? Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

user:resess user:movingtarget b2 user:bobjohnston 1953 and maybe user:98.196.34.221 although that IP geolocates to the US, so maybe I'm wrong about who it is, but three SPA's that know the ins and outs of wikipedia all born on or around the 15th? Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Could be, could be. The biased and/or incorrect text they're adding seems different, though. The general idea of removing all information showing that it doesn't work is similar, but there are different edits to the details of the patent and of the incarceration. In particular, the removal of the information that he's jailed as of January 2008 is not something I recall de Wilde trying. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And they're all gone.... Guyonthesubway (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Paul Pantone

Thanks for the reversion. I was wondering what to do. I'm having dreadful problems with Chrome, as opening edit windows now just gives me a blank window with no text to edit, and my internet connection. Is there still a BLP violation? dougweller (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think only the word "therefore" in the December 12, 2005 entry of the timeline; it seems that, if it has a source presently listed in the article, it's only the audio recording (note; I haven't listed to the whole thing; parts were inaudible on my home computer, even at maximum volume), and it seems legally questionable, so it's WP:BLP against the judge. It would be OK if there were a source. I think there would be no dispute about the facts that (the judge found that) he didn't get along with his lawyer and that the judge found him incompetent to participate in his sentencing, but not therefore. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

All of the SPA's that were the contentious editors on the article have been banned, we can probably unprotect the article now. Guyonthesubway (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

PanaceaUniversity.org Re: (Water Fuel Cell)

I decided to whois panaceauniversity.org and it a university run in the the US. More specifically, it is from WA.[37] In Canada, there is a law that specifically dissallows for an institution to be called a University unless they are clearly listed in that statute. Do you know if there is such a law in the US? I want to know if panaceauniversity is in violation of US law. --CyclePat (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no such law in the US. Actually, it doesn't even claim to be a "university" on its web site, only an "educationation nonprofit". Furthermore, most reputable private universities are 501(c)(3) (non-profit, contributions are dedictable), and Panacea is not, according to IRS Publication 78. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

By gaolie, for the love of God, I can't even find that law that deals with Canadian Universities. Don't you just hate it when you know something, and you know the information is out there, but can't find it. Argh! Frustrating. Which leaves me to believe, if it is that difficult to find that law (which I remember reading regarding Canadian Universities), it's may be just as if not even more difficult for the US. But... meh! Thank you again. --CyclePat (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Search results

I see the issue you raise. ie.: The second reference to google media (news) no longer contains the material that specifically mentions the fact. It has dissapeared from the search. That means, I should have added a link to the article, and then stipulated that the article was found via google media news. (even if I only accessed the google media news search summary). Argh! Frustrating. Muh!... So I made a reference mystake. Nevertheless, the fact is still there, somewhere out there. So how do you suggest we correct this. I would recommend finding the original article but that might be difficult... or maybe not. And finally do we need to correct this, isn't the original source sufficient (even though it has now dissapeared)?

Now for the first reference to Canlii. I disagree that the source is not reliable. Canlii specifically cites articles and takes the time to make the links within its database. In this case Canlii, with its reputable publishing status, indicates that the SCC case of Free world trust is cited within at leat 136 case.[38] However, it also indicates that is is in 134 cases[39]. Furthermore, don't forget the Provincial appeals case which indicates 7 case cites.[[40] It would be a true pain in the ass to cite every case, but in light of the afformentioned example regarding the google news clip, I fear this may be the only solution to properly rectify the problem. Nevertheless, Canlii is quite a reputable source and over the past several years I haven't seen information dissapear like on google. That is because Canlii is an independant database. If this is the case, we are hence citing information that has been independantly verified by Canlii, lexum, etc. In fact, I've checked and verified a few of those cases that refere Free World Trust. All appear to be in good order. Hence, I believe the information is currently reliable and meets standards for inclusion. I do not fear, just as the google example, that the circumstances may change. However, in light of the google example, I do understand the benefits of having a reference to every single case. Nevertheless, I dissagree with the necessity of having to implement the citations. Canlii is reliable and reputable. Note: This example is clearly different then the afformentioned google search. Also I did not count each case (WP:OR) and even if I did this is still permissible under WP:OR. Hence, even after the fact that I cite every case (already counted and cited by Canlii, there will still be some type of WP:OR (which is permissible under the circumstance) to count the number of cases and finally come to the same conclusion... that there are more then 148 cases. Nevertheless this is not the case because the number of cases cited is clearly published by Canlii so anyone can clearly see it. --CyclePat (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the question of search results in general, free+world+trust or even "free world trust" should have a number of false positives. If those cases which refer specifically to FWT v. (whoever it was; I'm on a slow connection at the moment) from Canlii would be an appropriate search result). I accept that a legal search engine may be stable and reliable, although we probably need sources for that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Dates

Yes their seems to be a cabal in operation who seem intent upon bullying and cajoling everyone into accepting their views in stormtrooper fashion, and steamrollering over any dissent. I strongly object to these bullyboy tactics. The methods being used by the anti-date link people are totally and utterly against the consensual spirit of wikipedia. If something isn't done about this, then any cabal can steamroller its views on everyone by brute force. This episode has got me quite worried. I hope we can work together to try and restore some sanity to this situation. G-Man ^? 19:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yobot task 10

Hi. I just noticed your message. Well, since we are doing the job I think completely substituting BD has many advantages. Probably, you have in mind the discussion about {{Lifetime}}. By having the categories fixed we skip the problem that the categories have to be rendered each time by the server, it's easier for newbies and bots to detect categories, etc. The last discussion didn't reach a consensus for Lifetime but it was a good motive for us to get rid of BD (because it's name doesn't show that it uses defaultsort) and add the substitution function for Lifetime. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Editor review

I've placed myself on editor review at Wikipedia:Editor_review/Cosmic_Latte, and I'm reaching out for feedback to editors who seem to be reasonably familiar with my work. If you have a moment to comment there, your feedback would be most appreciated. Thanks, Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

MOS-date de-linking

_{Moved discussion to where it is relevant and to de-clutter Tennis Expert's talk page.} Your conflict of interest in this (commentary regarding my block of Tennis Expert), especially as an administrator, should persuade you enough to not generate comments such as what you have above; your commentary is obviously biased as you have participated in the date-linking discussions and voiced opposition to the de-linking. Those who were uninvolved with the conflict, such as myself (as I've not participated in the date-linking discussions), are able to make unbiased decisions. seicer | talk | contribs 16:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's my opinion. I didn't say I would take action in the matter, just that I believe TE to be acting correctly and in the best interests of Wikipedia in this instance. I haven't read through much of his edit history before his reverting the improperly running bot.

On the other hand, are you saying that an admin who has linked or delinked dates cannot take action on the question. That probably would eliminate all admins as having a COI. (If you're saying an admin who has linked dates cannot take action, but an admin who has unlinked dates can, that's absurd.) There is not a clear consensus. I think only Tony and Lightmouse think there's a clear consensus for anything. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

He wasn't reverting just an 'improperly' running bot (was the bot blocked or reported?), but mutliple editors over dozens of pages. As an example that I gave at AN, he reverted seven times over three days -- gaming the system by not technically violating 3RR, although coming very close to it -- undoing not just the bot, but several different editors. This situation occurred on other pages as well, and it was not just the bot he was reverting, but others who were involved in the de-linking process.

I should apologize in that I was not inferring that you had conducted inappropriate actions, and I commend you for not taking any actions that would constitute wheel-warring. My comments reflected that you strongly disagreed with my block, and after admitting above that you did not read through his edit history, I (still) believe that it was because of your prior interactions with the de-linking discussions. I'm not discouraging you from discussing this further, as I appreciate all input, but I was worried that the spill over from the (sometimes) heated discussions regarding the de-linking issue would lead to hasty actions (not looking at you here). Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 17:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I concede that, given his past history, he can be blocked for edit warring even if an established editor might even be lauded for reverting the bot in question. Perhaps I should edit my comment to state that I don't necessarily contest the block, if you think it that statement appropriate.

And it's probably best that this discussion be removed from TE's page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No amendment is necessary; any such edits would be quite moot at this point. I've removed the relevant discussions from TE's page (regarding this), but if you need more removed, feel free to snip. seicer | talk | contribs 19:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As a note, due to excessive frivolous requests at 3RR/EW, and the two incident reports at AN and ANI, I've given all of the parties involved in those discussions a warning to cease edit warring or face sanctions. The attempts to game the system, threaten other users with desysoping/recalling/banning has become tiresome. I came in as someone who was entirely uninvolved with the whole date-delinking and linking bit, and now wish I had stepped back from it. seicer | talk | contribs 00:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

2008 artical (death section)

Just wondering, why was my edit which added the death of British actor Reg Varney, undone? The revision is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008&oldid=252285898. - The Ultimate Koopa (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In 2008, and possibly 2007, there is consensus that, to avoid having the article be too long to be meaningful, a person must have 9 non-English Wikipedia articles in order to be considered sufficiently notable. Reg only had 2 non-English articles when I checked. In fact, that statement is just below where you entered the information in the file; it must have been in your edit window. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually just noticed it just after I typed this The Ultimate Koopa (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Template error

Hi there, I've reverted this edit since the nested template did not display and caused in turn the RfC template not to display correctly and the Bot to consequently remove that RfC from the list (see diff). Since I don't think you intended to remove this entry from the list of active RfCs, I hope you'll be fine with this reversion. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I do think the RfC should be disregarded and restarted with the notes that the premise and the premise behind the premise are disputed, but I didn't intend to take it out. However, there does need to be an RfC about that RfC, as, because of the disputed statements in the premise and in Tony's interpretation of the lead, people may not be !voting on what they think they are. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

An RfC RfC! Surely you can't be serious? :) Tim Vickers (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. This is the first RfC that I recall where the status quo (both phrasing and meaning) are disputed (and that dispute is being relegated to the very bottom of the RfC, below the discussion section, instead of being above the discussions, as is clearly appropriate), and the RfC creator opposes the "changes" from the disputed text. It's out of process, there's an edit war about the content, and it should not be considered indicitive of consensus. As any result (except a "support" result) is clearly misleading, the RfC should be closed and (if Tony desires) restarted with a neutral lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I tracked down the error, it was the duplication of the date in this edit that broke the template. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm amused by the argument that any result except the one you happen to agree with would be "clearly misleading". Life would be so simple if we could apply that argument more generally. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not ever sure the an apparent consensus supporting the "changes" he opposes would mean anything, but certainly a consensus "opposing" means at most that the specific wording shouldn't be in the MoS. As my views seem to be failing in the other RfC which I see as fair, I see the RfC as disruptive. The RfC borders on WP:POINT, but I'd consider it appropriate if he (1) noted the dispute(s) in the RfC lede (and stopped deleting the attempts of 5 editors to note the dispute in the RfC lede), and (2) proposed changes to the MOS that he supported. In that case, although I'd still oppose his view, it would be a fair RfC. As it stands....it proves nothing, and it would be a sign of good faith for Tony to withdraw it and reset it in an NPOV manner. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Date linking RFC

I've tried to get it added to MediaWiki:Watchlist-details but Tony is opposing that on the talk page. Obviously we need more eyeballs on this, do you think there's a way forward? —Locke Cole • t • c 22:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Although Tony's RfC is, in fact, disruptive, it may not have been in bad faith. That being said, perhaps both RfC's should be listed in the watchlist-notice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think two RFCs dilutes the discussion and will only cause confusion and aggravation amongst the community, which is why I was trying to avoid that avenue. Having said that, as this needs more eyeballs I've added a second proposed wording which includes links to both RFCs. Let me know if you think there's any problem with it. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Alexei Cherepanov

I assumed that the only reason he was allowed to stay was the 9 foreign languages criteria. The fact that a 19 year old ice hockey player who has never represented his country at senior level and did not even win a gold medal in a world junior championship (an under 18 gold would really be stretching the limits of notability!) can have his death reported in 9 non-English articles highlights yet another inadequacy of that criteria as a basis for inclusion on a year page. There are certainly more notable people who have been excluded on that criteria but in my opinion it is better used for exclusion than inclusion; there really are still too many people included whose international notability is quite limited. While something is better than nothing a criteria that cannot be applied equally to all year pages (internet reports from 30+ years ago are going to be somewhat limited!) really leaves something to be desired. I am not too worried if he gets included back in as eventually (maybe a few years) there might be a more appropriate criteria that can be used. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Putative Attack and warning

Sorry, you're wrong, and your warning shows poor judgement. There is no attack here whatsoever

• (a)The remark was a reminded to Jaakobou, after Tiamut complained recently of being harassed by him, that his remark that he had absolutely nothing against Muslims or Arabs was not true, for the record says otherwise.
• (b) The diff referred to a remark, made while Jaakobou was coediting a page with Tiamut, who happens to be a Palestinian Arab, to this effect

• The Arab world, Islam inspired cultural structure is the main cause of the Arab-Palestinian 91 year racist terror campaign against the Jewish-Palestinians

• (c)In any construal of the English language, Jaakobou, contextually, was telling his fellow editor, a Palestinian Arab, that her world (Arab world) and its cultural structure (essence), in so far as it is infused by Islamic civilization, is responsible for a nigh century long campaign of both terror and racism against the Jewish people in Palestine.
• (d)To make a diff. for editors who may not know this background, but who are called on to 'read' a recurrent quarrel between the two, is not to attack Jaakobou. Nor, to cite it as a reminder, when he affirms he is free of prejudice, is not an attack on Jaakobou.
• (e) This contextual attack on Tiamat as someone with a racist and terroristic Islamic culture was struck out, not becausea Jaakobou thought it untrue but because he reflected it might be possibly offensive.
• (f) If Jaakobou can provide me with a diff from his record in which he states that he has recanted on the belief he expressed there, and no longer subscribes to that idea, then I will not, if such incidents arise in the future, remind him of his past beliefs by using this diff.
• (g) In the meantime, I affirm once more the contextual propriety and appropriateness of making the remark you characterise, wrongly, as a personal attack. If I happen to be wrong in my review and judgement, by all means proceed with a sanction, since clearly this would mean I am not possessed of a level of understanding of the rules required for editing wikipedia with equanimity and respect. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The warning you handed out here was also inappropriate. When an editor is taken to ANI accused of offenses as serious as they were in this case, editors who concur with that judgement must be free to speak their mind. PR^talk 22:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in knowing that PR's response to your warning about his personal attacks, was to repost a 2006 personal attack on Jayjg, which got the original poster a block for personal attacks when he first made it. NoCal100 (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that, regardless of the truth of the accusation, both Nishidani and PR are making personal attacks, rather than making accusations which have potential evidence. (At this point, I decline comment as to whether the potential evidence is actual.) As for the "attack" on Tiamat, that doesn't appear to me to be an actual "attack", although I can understand Tiamat feeling it as such. Jaakobou could apologize for the interpretation, but I don't see an obligation to do so, even under his parole for past transgressions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's something of a mystery why anyone who cares for the project would defend an editor with Jaakobou's record. If the evidence of such as myself doesn't sway you, how about the evidence presented by two administrators at Jaakobou's ArbCom earlier this year?

This entry has section headers ".. is a tendentious editor ... is a revert warrior ... is deceitful ..." and this entry has section headers ".. edit wars often ... believes his edit warring can be justified". And they're admins one might think share his POV! Get back to me if you think I'm being unfair or if you think he's improved - as far as I can tell, the edit-warring continues and the ethnic harassment has turned quite ugly. PR^talk 15:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied to your comment on your 2013 (etc) reversions

...which is on my Talk page. I'm saying this here, because I'm unclear whether you get notified when someone replies to your comment on a user Talk page. Dougmerritt (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is garbage

there was not one article I vandalized, I only tried to create one explaining why wikipedia is a HORRIBLE source of information if you cant come to realize that then so be it, but you dont have to destroy the pages created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ub0r (talk • contribs) 22:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That's only your opinion. He deleted your information because not everyone will agree with it. -- IRP ☎ 02:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Bicentennial and Centennials

Hi, I receive the message.

I edit this events because many users of Wikipedia wonders why don´t edit in the sections of events the bicentennials and I wondered why too. I hope that this comment don´t be a bother for you. Thanks--Beaker35 (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I just wanted to point out that "we" had already agreed not to have centennials, bicentennicals, tercenntennials, millennials, etc., in the year articles unless there are present verifiable plans to comemmorate the event. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Good luck / Mikel Laboa

Hope your recovery is going well. I've started translating "Mikel Laboa" as you requested, although I've hit a few stumbling blocks. The original article is a very interesting read. Saludos. -- Tonyle 22:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Year pages

Hi, you might want to have a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Time#2009_and_other_crazy_speculations. Thanks, Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

Arthur, I think you owe a duty to respond here.

Regards, NSH001 (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

206.192.242.96 & OregonD00d

Given their editing histories, would you not say it is reasonable to assume these two are one and the same? There are no block-avoidance issues here, or anything of the sort. Though, given the editing patterns, and the way the IP was used to revert your reversion of "the D00d," he might be attempting to avoid 3RR. Might be worth keeping an eye on it. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me, also. No problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Abagnale

How can you say I am not a reliable source when I was the Chairman of the comittee at the University of South Carolina that booked him for the appearance he cancelled. The Comittee's name was Ideas And Issues a Part of the Carolina Program Union. I was its chairman and then the next year the VP of the Student Union. I am the Primary Source, this is not second hand or rumour. I did not read it somewhere. The Booking Fee was $2500 at the time. I cannot remember for sure who we booked him through. I still have a copy of the book signed by him that was given to me at the NACA convention--I may even have flyers promoting the speech as I kept them from most of the events we did. I am still in touch with a number of members of both that comittee and theunion in general all of whom could verify what I wrote. When the movie came out I got a few calls wondering what I thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.205.14 (talk) 09:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"Reliable source" is a term used by Wikipedia; it may not have the conventional meaning. Also, as noted in WP:BLP, we cannot generally use primary sources in articles about living people. I apologize, and I'd like to see the material in Wikipedia, but it can't be here unless published. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of nonstandard analysis

Hi Arthur, would it be possible to comment at the AfD? Katzmik (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack

Your only contribution in the discussion at Talk:Hollywood,_Los_Angeles,_California#Move_to_Hollywood is : "Serge is making trouble again." [1], so I'm reminding you about Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which states:

Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia.

Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's about your actions, not about you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are personal attacks. You cited no evidence, nor even indicated what you meant by "making trouble". If you seriously want to raise an issue about behavior then take it up in the appropriate place, with evidence, as I am doing here on your talk page. In absence of that, please retract the comment. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you really want me to present evidence, Serge? There shouldn't be any great difficulty. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If you seriously have an issue with behavior, then, yes, you should present the evidence and your argument about how that evidence indicates a violation of WP guidelines or rules on the person's talk page, as I've done here with you. But please do not make accusations about personal behavior in the middle of a discussion about content. That's a personal attack, by definition. Please retract the comment. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop "targeting" me

No offense, but I feel like you're trying to undo all my work. OregonD00d (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel that most of your "work" is harmful to Wikipedia. Your idea of tagging activities with all periods of time in which they are popular is just weird, and seems to be a violation of WP:OCAT. Your creation of names for time intervals is in violation of WP:OR, and your assignment of articles to those time intervals might by WP:SYNTH even if the time interval names were valid. I think the "Fads" by decade are OK, as long as they're properly pruned and no fad is is more than 2 decades. (If it's longer than 2 decades, it's not a "fad", it's a trend :) )

If you were to consult with relevant WikiProjects (including WikiProject Time) before creating your categories, those few which make sense could be properly populated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Permanent is sharp-P-complete

At Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Permanent_is_sharp-P-complete, you question the notability of the proof. But the article's title refers to the theorem, not to the proof. If the proof is not notable enough to be the topic of the article, but the theorem is, then the proper solution should be to rewrite the article so that the theorem itself is the main topic, rather than to delete the article. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see enough there so that more than:

1. The statement of the theorem in Permanent
2. The statement and possibly a little history in #P-complete, along with other history of #P-hard problems.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, you seem to have signed your posting before you finished your sentence. You leave me uncertain what you said. Can you clarify? Michael Hardy (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't really see there being enough about the theorem itself to deserve more than mention in Permanent and #P-complete or #P.

Possessives

You reverted the addition of "'s" for possesives in the Fermat's Last Theorem article. I've put them back in. The Chicago Manual of Style, 14th Edition, sections 6.24-6.30, gives the rules for forming possessives of proper nouns. It gives examples such as "Davis's House", "Jones's reputation", etc. The exceptions are "Jesus" and "Moses", which are "traditional exceptions"; and names of more than one syllable with an unaccented ending pronounced eez, such as "Europides", "Ramses", Xerxes", etc. "Wiles" does not fall into either exception. Regards, Magidin (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I have an earlier edition of CMS, which didn't have that wording. I trust you, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

request

Dear WP administrator

I am a Chinese Doctoral candidate, working on a subject which was in a page of WP.

I noticed this page was deleted despite being concordant with WP notability rules (as presented in WP notability page) Can you tell me how to proceed in order to restore this page in respect to WP standards and rules? Please answer in my wp page and to my email : guozhangluo@yahoo.cn Thank you.

Happy holidays

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; at some point, our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Robinson-Dixmier-Connes

Please comment regarding my background information at the talk page of Criticism of non-standard analysis. Katzmik (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC) I have just had the privilege of being told by the greats of this world how to construct the ultrafilter. Given an infinite integer H we consider the set of all standard subsets A of the integers containing H; that's an ultrafilter. Given an arbitrary non-standard hyperreal, one can construct a hyperinteger out of it using the integer part. Katzmik (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Open proxies

Why did you reduce the open proxy block to only a week? Jehochman ^Talk 23:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I just corrected myself. I thought I was extending my block. Wikipedia is running very slow, perhaps because of more template vandalism propagating. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Let's hope not! Jehochman ^Talk 23:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

2008

I was clearly trying to improve the article. I don't know if it was any better but the current pictures in article doesn't to show a worldwide view since they lack major events that happened this year. (anybody rememeber Kenya?) And if you look at the photos of dead people they clearly lack women there as if only men died this year. --23prootie (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

We've had some good times and bad times. You've made me learn a few good things over the year. Thank you for your patience, honesty and mentorship through the often contentious edits we've experienced. You've been honorable and I thank you for that. Thank you for also teaching me how to better express some issues (remaining focused), all while being less confrontational. I wish you and your family all the best during this holiday season. Merry Christmas and God bless. --CyclePat (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

About the -1, -1, -1, -1 example in Rotation Matrix entry

Could you check the discussion here: Talk:Rotation_matrix#-1.2C_-1.2C_-1.2C_-1_example —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sissyneck (talk • contribs) 22:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Date templates requiring protecting

As far as I can see all the key templates are protected now. You might want to protect Template:Decadebox, Template:Centurybox,Template:Millenniumbox, Template:00sbox and Template:00sboxBC, though none of those (except possibly the first) are transcluded on a particularly large number of pages (however as you know, the time period pages do attract a lot of undesirable attention, so that might be an argument for protecting the templates as a precaution, but I'll leave it up to you).--Kotniski (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)