User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2011

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Arthur Rubin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 2005

←

Archive 2009

Archive 2010

Archive 2011

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mhiji 01:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

As an administrator, perhaps you can explain to me why you can or should override the support by the Relativity Taskforce for United States gravity control propulsion research. I don't see you listed as a member. Do they give their support to random pages outside of the category of Relativity? What is their purpose if their endorsement is useless? I'm honestly confused and I ask in good faith. Thank you. xod (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The support of the Relativity Taskforce for the article has nothing to do whether it should be in Category:General relativity or subcategories. (It certainly shouldn't be both in a category and link to the category.) That being said, there may be an adequate number of articles to support the creation of Category:Fringe general relativity or Category:Fringe interpretations of general relativity, in which this article almost certainly might belong. Rephrasing, the taskforce does not own Category:General relativity, nor would even a finding by the task force that the article belongs in the category would be binding, although that might require some consideration. There's no claim to that effect in your comment.

I could add at least 5 NPOV-related tags to the article, including WP:PEACOCK. Could you (or the task force) please work on bringing the article marginally into compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines before worrying about what categories it might belong to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy answer. You write The support of the Relativity Taskforce for the article has nothing to do whether it should be in Category:General relativity or subcategories. This is where my confusion lies. The decision of the Relativity Task force really doesn't break the tie in this category edit war? What happens next if somebody reverts your change and puts the article back into the category? Is it settled by the seniority of the editor? I'm not invested enough to engage in the edit war myself, I'm just trying to learn more about the way Wikipedia works, and what to expect next on the page. Thanks! xod (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion should be in the article talk page, unless part of a general discussion of the category (in which case it should be in the category talk page) or the Taskforce (in which case it should be on the task force subpage.) If it's in one of the latter locations, it should be pointed to from the article talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There is consensus on one of the Talk Pages (2008 or 2009) that state leaders be included (unless there are strong arguments not to). I haven't got time to find exactly where, will check after work. It should probably be added to WP:RY. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Arthur!

I made a page for Mathematics Made Difficult, a classic text in my opinion, but it was proposed for deletion as "not notable enough". If you also believe this is worth a reference, could you lend your support on the talk page for the article, or add more to the article itself? Thanks, LouScheffer (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The {{Prod}} has been removed, and you probably shouldn't have asked me about it, per WP:CANVASS. However, if it goes to AfD, you may comment on WT:MATH, and I'll probably chime in. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I added today the number 14745 with the comment: 7th number with more than 1 digit that can be written from base 2 to base 18 using only the digits 0 to 9.^[1] You replied: "seems a non-notable property (the end of the base list is arbitrary; does it do so in base 19? base 20?"

Well, to avoid an edit war.. I would like to answer you: - no, it stops at base 18, at base 19, it starts using letters. And adds some precision: The original idea was to find out if some numbers could be written using only digits 0 to 9, in as many consecutive bases as possible. From base 2 to base 21, or above there is no number above 9. From base 2 to base 20, there is only number above 9: 20 From base 2 to base 19, there are only 2 numbers above 9: 19 and 20. From base 2 to base 18, there are only 10 numbers above 9: 18, 19, 20, 1027, 1028, 1029, 14745, 9020076688681, 9439828025162228377 and 9439829801208141318 From base 2 to base 17 and below, there is an infinite number of such numbers.

So why bases 2 to 18? simply because for those bases, there is a finite, yet interesting number that matches the definition.

Note that a lot of numbers are listed as just "prime number" which is a very common characteristic. This characteristic of numbers, to me, is much more interesting than whether a number is prime or not, mostly because for a specific set of digits, one can find a series of bases for which the number of numbers matching that characteristic is as large as possible while staying finite.

Besides, a lot of numbers are not listed having any particular property, while I'm sure a lot of them have some unlisted property.

I request that you restore the entry at your convenience. Edit it, if you like, with some of the information given above.

Thanks in advance. Dhrm77.

Because of the number of arbitrary pieces of information: digits 0-9, and bases 2-18, being a member of the finite list doesn't seem a notable property. Being the last one may be notable, but seems only marginally so. The fact that I don't consider the property interesting may affect my decision to notice it, but I don't think it affects my judgment that it doesn't belong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree that some of the pieces of information may seem somewhat arbitrary, but so are a lot of other information given on wikipedia. Similar series of numbers exist for: - digits 0-1 in bases 2 to 5 - digits 0-2 in bases 2 to 7 - digits 0-3 in bases 2 to 9 - digits 0-4 in bases 2 to 10 - digits 0-5 in bases 2 to 12 - digits 0-6 in bases 2 to 14 - digits 0-7 in bases 2 to 15 - digits 0-8 in bases 2 to 17 - digits 0-9 in bases 2 to 18 (listed above) - digits 0-A in bases 2 to 20 - digits 0-B in bases 2 to 21 - digits 0-C in bases 2 to 23 - digits 0-D in bases 2 to 24 - digits 0-E in bases 2 to 26 - digits 0-F in bases 2 to 27 etc... I consider it a notable property because it deals with the normal digits used in base 10, and because with those exact parameters, there are relatively few numbers that have that property. Those numbers being rare, they are notable. 14745 was the only number between 1029 and 9020076688681 with that property! The fact that YOU don't find this property notable doesn't mean someone else won't. I would suggest you don't make a judgment call based on your personal preferences. By your own standard, since I don't find "pronic numbers" of any interest, I should probably eliminate all mention of them in wikipedia... That would absurd, and contrary to the intent of Wikipedia, to bring knowledge to people. So I ask again, please revert your revert. This is only a small line in that range of numbers which is largely incomplete.

How can you say that "weather fronts", "low-pressure area", "high-pressure area", etc., are not related to Geography? Do you know that meteorology is only part of geography? -- 203.223.238.224 (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you an idiot, or only pretending to be one? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems that you are the one who is an idoit. "Meteorology" is the study of weather elements, which occur in the troposphere, which is a shpere that is stuidied by physical geography. If you have any misconceptions, you should go to check it by yourself. Please make sure that you are polite as well. -- 203.223.238.224 (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You're both out of line, but Rubin is an admin and ought to know better. Cut it out before I report you both. Dylan Flaherty 01:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Ruby sometimes forgets how to communicate effectively... I am not saying this is par for the course but if he wakes on the wrong side of bed you will get this sort of unprofessional behaviour which I agree is unexcusable, particularly for someone who should be esteemed as admin of Wikipedia. This unfortunately fuels the fire of the bad name Wikipedia is getting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.174.87 (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, I've raised a concern at BLPN about the reverting. [1] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have commented at Talk:Polytope on your reversion of another editor's citation. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Like me, you stepped in to revert an IP-hopping editor's repeated edits at Ahmad Zahir, as his version had not achieved any support on the talk page (nor did it seem likely to gather any support, the way he was going). Unfortunately, following your page protection request, it looks like the page is now fully protected with the IP-hopping editor's version intact. AtticusX (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say that any film's World Premiere is a notable event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMercury39 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly in regard the film, but never in regard the actors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The honorable mention cite seemed OK, so didn't understand the deletion rationale. If it's an SPA issue, do you mind if I add it instead? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it notable? It's a top 100 list for 2010; who knows if they had one in 2009 or will in 2011. I have doubts about the Time Heroes of the Environment list the SPA added, but it's better than an annual top 100 list. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

By coincidence, I added the same top 100 mention for Nouriel Roubini in 2009. Foreign Policy Magazine is a very influential and respected publication. They put out other widely referred to lists, such as the annual Failed States list. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program&diff=408608376&oldid=408586763 Please explain why my addition was removed. Also, the way you added at the end of those two movies the new text about Jessy's TV show, make it read as if his show is also fictionalized which it is clearly not. - the least you could have done was create a new sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.144.14.140 (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In no specific order: It is fictionalized, and you know it. Aside from that, you copied the show's description of the episode, which is a clear copyright violation (even in the article about the show), and it's too much detail for one episode of one show. Even if he went (near or to) the site of the real HAARP, it's still fiction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. as this is my first edit on wikipedia, ill go ahead and work on it, and submit a new one which i hope you will let fly. thanks for your time. for the record: I hope this is not a result of your opinion here regarding the content of the show. that would disappoint me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorienN (talk • contribs) 22:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The show, like America's Most Wanted, is primarily entertainment. Any facts about the subject of an episode are secondary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

see.. your opinions are coming out, which i think are irrelevant. this is not Facebook, but an online encyclopedia. Your edits can only be legit if they are stripped of any opinion. It makes no difference at all what you think of the Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura TV series. I really do hope your further edits to my words here will not be influenced by your opinion. I think that will simply put shame on the entire existence and meaning of this grand website and source. I am still working on it, and have been reading here about the rules - doing my best to give you no reason to edit my words and be over picky with me, but rather sit back and respect their addition to the already existing information about HAARP. You can be sure, I am going to do ALL i can to make sure my addition will be 100% perfect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorienN (talk • contribs) 08:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

ok here is what i have come up with. please let me know if this can fly. if not, please let me know why. please be detailed in your comments. please note that I have used the every word for my addition directly from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_Theory_with_Jesse_Ventura - so there can be no copyright issues you mentioned.

"In the first episode of Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura (December 2, 2009), the former Navy UDT, and Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura, visits HAARP to uncover the truth behind rumors that it is being used as a weather modification weapon, an instrument for mind control, or both."

thanks for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorienN (talk • contribs) 09:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Even so, (and I think the copyright problem lies in Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura), that's too much detail for a single episode of a non-news program. I think the most that could be reasonably be said is:

• In the first episode of Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura, Jesse Ventura investigates HAARP.

Any more detail presupposes the show is intended to be factual, which requires some further investigation. Use of the word "truth" should only be done in a direct quote, and the details of what he is investigating requires more detail. Under those circumstances, it may deserve a full sentence, rather than being appended to the fictional references, but any more detail would be, IMHO, WP:UNDUE weight. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I think you have stripped way too much out of it, but to be able to move on, how about this as a compromise:

• In the first episode of Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura, Jesse Ventura, former Navy UDT and Minnesota governor, investigates HAARP.

will that work? i honestly see why not. the few words about his background are incredibly relevant here. there is nothing wrong with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorienN (talk • contribs) 15:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You can find any relevant background in Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura or Jesse Ventura, and I don't consider his being a Navy UDT (which requires a Wikilink, as I can't recall exactly what it means; you probably mean Underwater Demolition Team member or lead) or Minnesota governor as being relevant background toward the credibility of the show. I think his professional wrestling background better explains why he chose and/or was chosen to host the show than either, but that is original research on my part. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I give up. thanks for proving my point Arthur Rubin. Your entire response here so very much fits your profile and background its actually sad. enjoy the power while it lasts. i hope you are happy . — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorienN (talk • contribs) 17:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, concerning your edit in here, I think you should have a look at this page. However, your decision as an admin is fully respected. Best wishes, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 12:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually, a more realistic search only has 31 hits, of which at least 2 seem to only have an incidental "2010". Still, I'd like to see a noticeboard discussion, although I don't know where the appropriate board is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that there are other articles having such info.The number of them was not important for me. I just checked a couple of them to make sure I have not made a mistake. I believe mentioning it in the article is a better choice. Regards, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 15:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I do object to adding a standardized blurb to all such, as 99.52.150.146 was doing (and without checking whether that 31 includes the 14 just added.) If, on individual consideration, you consider it appropriate, go ahead and add it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What part of the text you reverted on Jan 19 2011 is original research? The text is incomplete in the sense that there are no citations yet, but everything stated in it is considered "common knowledge" among mathematicians. The only original thing in it is the wording. Lapasotka (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Some of the statements are so far from mainstream wording as to constitute material requiring a source.

Please work out your proposed sections on a user page or a talk page section before adding alternative views to the existing material. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Please be more precise. I agree that sources need to be stated (which I was going to do), but now the reason for the removal seems to be NPOV-based. Here are the sentences which have a hint of POV:

• The arithmetic operations on real numbers are compatible with these operations, but they are more naturally described using geometry.
• Perhaps the easiest to picture is the multiplication of positive real numbers in terms of areas of rectangles:
• The second characterization is better for multiplication of general real numbers since it leads to a construction for the point xy on the number line more easily.

I think these parts should be edited to find a consensus instead of wiping out the whole section.The geometric depiction of addition and multiplication and the axioms of real numbers are standard, but they need a reference. I believe the geometric proofs fall into the class of Routine calculations with respect to the original research. Is there something else you disagree with regarding NOR? Lapasotka (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Those not only have a hint of POV, the first two are entirely POV. Some of your other sections (which appear to be the axioms for a real-closed field, although I didn't look at them in that much detail), should only be in subarticles. I think geometrical representation of the real numbers might also be a separate subarticle. If you feel it's relevant, work on it as a separate article, and then we will see whether it should be deleted or merged into real numbers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll change them and figure out about subarticles. This is the first MAJOR page I have touched, mostly on the grounds that it is quite useless for general audience being too snobbish without any Elementary description. (Real numbers is the unique complete archimedean ordered field. How about that?) Do you think the section itself should be there in some reduced form? Lapasotka (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. That is probably the simplest definition of the real numbers, but some justification should also be included in the lede; perhaps you should work on adding geometric constructions to real line? In any case, working on a separate article geometrical representation of the real numbers may very well be the way to go; perhaps it should then be merged into real line, rather than real numbers, but let's see what you can come up with. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, you should have added a splitting proposition instead of reverting the section on these grounds. Lapasotka (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

As you are aware, the deletion of this category was undertaken in anticipation of the deletion of Category:Journal of Economic Literature Categories. The result of that discussion was Rename. I request that you reverse your changes, and implement the outcome of the CFD discussion. JQ (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Apply to DRV about the January 18th deletion of the category. Category:JEL: Q was a separate deletion (G4), related, but not subsidiary to the confused CFD you note. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that you are now actively wikistalking me, I think it would be simpler for me to withdraw from the entire Wikipedia project. I'm a busy person, as you can see from John Quiggin and I really don't have time for this.JQ (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

When I see an editor making questionable edits, I sometimes look at his/her edit history for other questionable edits. I find that your insistence on putting EMH in the lede of all technical analysis articles is POV-pushing. Perhaps you should write about something you are less enthusiastic about here on Wikipedia, contributing only to talk pages of articles where you have a non-NPOV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

My fellow economists would be *very* amused to see me labelled a pro-EMH POV-pusher. But I don't have the time to fight on this, so I'll sign off here. Excess enthusiasm for contributing to Wikipedia won't be a problem for me in future.JQ (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Incredible loss to WP:Econ if JQ is WP-gone. I'm hoping it's not so or that JQ would reconsider. I don't believe the ad hominem remarks above were germane to the issue above. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? I believe that there would be no dishonor to yourself if you reversed (or possibly recused) yourself. Write about something you are less enthusiastic about? That is the WP equivalant of telling Milton Friedman to write about something other than econ for WP. Sincerely, Thomasmeeks (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC) P.S. I was taken aback by top news on your user page. I hope things have since improved.

Arthur, it seems like you haven't been able to do anything truly productive with yourself since winning the Putnam, and 'm sorry to hear about your wife's state of health. Please discontinue with your biased policing of my contributions. The UUe Trust (and the MAGICampaign for that matter) is real and cited. If it happens again, you will be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajpaj (talk • contribs) 17:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You have provided no evidence that they're real. I finally read the youtube links, and they are 5-8 second screenshots. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Even if real, you have provided no evidence of notability. All I see is blog entries. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Listen to what you're saying, "Even if real, you have provided no evidence of notability."... You're behaving as if you know the law, which you do not. I'm sure the IRS has familiarity with trust laws. For you to edit this page is a knock against your credibility. You also made changes that were sweeping on the 'computational mathematics' page. Having a TLD does not make an institution official or notable. The converse is true, too. Be smart, dude!Rajpaj (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. There's no such "term" as a "goodwill trust", and no evidence that your organizations are related to "computational mathematics" or are notable. Wikipedia requires, for an organization to have an article (or even a disambiguation link), that it be mentioned in some reliable source. The WP:EL guideline is less restrictive, but you have not provided any links with actual information, or evidence of relevance to the topics.

As for the IRS, I'm not convinced an organization which they consider a trust can be charitable. But there are differences between the legal characterization of entities and the tax characterization, so I'm willing to ignore that probable error, if you could provide evidence that there was such a thing as a "goodwill trust". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The law has nothing to do with notability. I'd have removed those links myself if I'd seen them. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You have external links, but somehow the link to the permaculture forums, which had been there for years (I think), was removed. This is the largest permaculture site on the internet. How is it that this link would be repeatedly removed? How is it that it was removed in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.143.161 (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It was removed, along with dozens of other links, on 12:06, December 15, 2010 (GMT). Then removed again (alone) on 23:47, December 20, 2010. If you want to present reasons why that link should be returned, and you're blocked (as you should be, for 3RR), present the reasons on your talk page, and I'll transfer them to the article talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you say why you removed the section on the Hide/Seek controversy from the Smithsonian page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.90.176 (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It didn't seem notable, even if the source were reliable (which I didn't check). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi recommended I ask you for help. HkFnsNGA (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you reacted with such an unexplained flurry of tags to Fish School Search. However, looking more closely I'm inclined to think it should perhaps be removed, at least for now. The authors claimed it was submitted to appear in the Swarm Intelligence Journal in 2010, but it hasn't appeared to date. Moreover, there are no citations sofar for the current publications. However, if this position changes, then I think the entry should be reinstated. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There were no published sources, even for the revision I tagged. And, even if there were sources, there was too much detail in the paragraph, much more than for the other entries. Hence {{refimprove}} and {{undue}}. The summary seemed a little be {{peacock}}. The fourth tag may have been inappropriate. However, I suspect a copyvio, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes it would need paraphrasing. Anyway, I've removed the entry for now. It could perhaps be reinstated later if it firms up. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia and don't quite understand why you removed my edits to the Capturing the Friedmans page. Can you please explain? Thanks. --Cediwiki (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Your last edit was sourced to Wikipedia Commons, which is not a reliable source. Normally, for a Wikipedia Commons reference, I would suggest that you include the real reference, giving the Wikipedia Commons entry as a courtesy copy, but your sources appear to be copies of court proceedings, which are primary sources, which are suggested to be inappropriate for articles related to a living person. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but can you explain why it's inappropriate? It seems to me that nothing could be less inappropriate! Additionally, how can I keep that (true and verifiable) information on the page without these sources? Thank you for your time! --Cediwiki (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

We need secondary sources for anything regarding a living person, per WP:PRIMARY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this page should be speedily deleted for the reasons I mentioned. Anything you do to help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deletefeader (talk • contribs) 10:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. Something needs to be done, but I think there might be something appropriate at that name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The ArbCom case on Race and intelligence is mentioned in a letter to The Economist.[2] -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "post–Kyoto Protocol" takes an en dash just as "post–World War II" does. Please read WP:ENDASH. — kwami (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I've self-reverted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No prob. I get myself screwed up over this sometimes, esp. since the style guides are not consistent. — kwami (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems you have added a message to my page regarding an edit war. I am putting up useful sources re: Amway's business models and there seems to be a cartel of Amway staff taking them down. You can't argue with the truth of the matter. Amway IS a Ponzi scheme. Dr Asha Joliet (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I know it's a pyramid scheme (not a Ponzi scheme, exactly). Still, you need to provide (what we call) reliable sources to that effect, and, even if you do, you may not make a revert or partial revert more than 3 times in a 24-hour period. Reverting less often may be considered edit warring, and can be sanctioned. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Please consider reverting edits today by an anonymous user to the article Income tax in the United States. Capitalization of the word "Federal" was in accordance with usage in 26 USC. Change to section heading makes part of the heading redundant with the article title. Thanks. Oldtaxguy (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

True, but we don't capitalize "God" (or associated pronouns) or "Christ" in religious articles. (And "Federal" is not redundant with "in the United States"; in theory, we could list state tax rates.) I'll have to consider the guidelines more closely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Your 3RR warning is unfounded, as it is you who have made three reversions now of the same material. I find your template message on my talk page to be offensive and unnecessary and I request that you withdraw it. If you have something to say to me, say it plainly instead of hiding behind template messages. As I have stated, I find your changes to be incorrect for the reasons stated in my edit summaries. If you're going to reply here, notify me by placing the {{talkback}} template on my talkpage; otherwise, pleas reply on my talk page. — KV5 • Talk • 16:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If you refuse to do so, I can only assume that you have seen this message and ignored it because your preferred version is in place and you simply choose not to discuss because of that fact, which is contrary to site-wide policy. — KV5 • Talk • 17:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I find the "original" clearly incorrect. Use Americas or an explicit America (disambiguation) if you want a correct statement. And you had 3 reverts, while I had 2. I see no evidence United States was ever used, although clearly acceptable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not at any time have three reverts. I reverted your work twice. Check the history before you make unfounded accusations next time. — KV5 • Talk • 17:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. You only had 2 reverts. Still, it looked as if you were going to continue to revert to your preferred form, regardless of arguments. I see, also, someone else agreed that it shouldn't be linked, which was my preferred form, to begin with. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"it looked as if you were going to continue to revert to your preferred form" - a little good faith is in order. That said, you could have just gone to the talk page, per WP:BRD, after your removal was reverted. — KV5 • Talk • 17:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I was trying other alternative links, even though I thought it should be unlinked. What is clear is that the link that was there was wrong. Perhaps an explicit America (disambiguation) would have been better. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how you say the provided link was wrong; I chose it because it includes a discussion on the usage of "Americans" as a whole rather than just "America" referring to the United States. — KV5 • Talk • 17:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You might find the Binary Mole (N_o = 2⁷⁹) interesting as you commented in 2008 that a power of 2 seemed appropriate in the case of Avogadro's number/constant. I tried to put a reference to the Binary Mole on the Avogadro's Constant article page, but it was deleted by Materialscientist who wrote "Undid revision 412257292 by SciMann (WP:OR - needs much better referencing, formatting and placement in the article". This is/was not original research or publishing of the issue, this proposed definition of the mole is not experimentally verifiable, the only places that it exists (mine or references to mine) were given, and the formating already in the Avogadro's Constant article page was used. My placement at the end of the introductory was obviously a problem for this person as it clearly pointed to an alternate view that differed from that currently accepted. I was subsequently told that my insert violated the self-citing rule. I have added it for the moment to the discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Avogadro_constant. SciMann (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)User:SciMann (talk)

Just wanted to understand why you reverted the external link added to Humanitarian Logistics? Specifically, the HLA professional association that offers certification and training. Perhaps this would better be presented by adding a Section on Education and Training to the article, then include the External Reference?

Forgive me as I am new here and still learning the rules. Thanks in advance for your reply. Martin.A.Bush (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A friend of mine User:Heinleinscat was blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry he did not commit. (He lives at a college where he edits from a computer lab. What's the recourse there? BCLH (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MBMadmirer/Archive#31 January 2011 looks pretty conclusive. Although I tend to agree with your friend's edits, it being done repeatedly with the same wording makes it appear to be attempt to bypass WP:3RR, whether or not it's actually the same person. If it were a generally conservative or libertarian study body, that might be a point in his favor.

Note that I haven't checked the evidence; this is just based on the report above and the comment to his unblock request. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, Thanks for your interest in adequal. I thought we try in general to avoid redirects. What is the reason for your edits? Tkuvho (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be a bot which follows redirects, but the guidelines say not to do it unless the name used is misleading. I pointed this out to someone else, recently. Ah, found it. See WP:NOTBROKEN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hum...[3]...see the associated talkpage please.--MONGO 00:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Commented on talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Particle accelerator mishap may be unsourced but I've seen concerns in the newspaper regarding micro black holes and strangelets voiced by serious people about the Large Hadron Collider. Unless the content is obviously hair brained, which this one is not, serious editors have the right to require an edit summary and/or consensus for removal of content by anons. I consider myself a responsible editor when checking my watchlist and rc. I double check, go back in the article history before and after my revert and sometimes catch and revert my own mistakes, etc etc. I don't use automatic tools other than rollback. I take it slow. Each anon edit is a case by case basis judgement call. I've seen experienced editors, including admins incorrectly restoring content that was removed without explanation by anons just because all they could see in Huggle is: content remove without summary = vandalism = revert. I'm more careful than that. Unless the content is obvious nonsense I may, at my discretion require that an edit summary be provided for removal of content. SlightSmile 19:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You have deleted my contribution without explanation. As a new contributor, I would be grateful for some hints to help improve my offerings. Paul Hield (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Your contribution may be accurate, but it's unsourced. The rest of the section is also unsourced, but I think I could find sources for it, but not for yours. Please check WP:RS and WP:OR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You are quite right that it would no doubt be easy to find many text books outlining the argument deployed that taxation lowers wages and profits, but as I am trying to point out, the argument is incomplete because it only goes as far as removing money from an economy and does not take into account the most likely situation where the same money is spent again by government in which case the same argument (with which you take no issue) would have opposite consequences. The argument running in either direction is a matter of applying very simple logic to a set of idealised assumptions, not a matter of substantiated empirical research. The true consequences of taxation are much more subtle and difficult to discern and would indeed merit a whole host of references to sources. Therefore I believe that your removal of my contribution should be reversed, I shall do so forthwith.

Arthur, I have started a new section in Tax Talk, I would welcome your views on how to improve this section.

Kind regards - Paul Paul Hield (talk) 07:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have created the article Thomas W. Hungerford. I will be adding material to it in the coming weeks, especially notability references. You may restore the links to this article if you wish.--Foobarnix (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Untalker Hewitt, do you think, or one of his students, i.e. one of the people not allowed to edit the article per ArbCom? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. The MO is a little different. If Untalker is a student, he's a student of paraconsistent logic, rather than of concurrent computation. On the other hand, I failed to recognize ResearchEditor's return as multiple 1-edit editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I've added pending changes, so that might be enough, but if you see anything that makes you think it's someone who shouldn't be editing that page, please let me know. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment on Talk:Amazon Rainforest, please. 99.56.121.41 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.83.114 (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur. What we have there is an editor who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia but is a professional and is trying to be cooperative -- see User talk:Camburns. So far his experience of Wikipedia has been very discouraging, unfortunately. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess I should apologize. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have encountered a publication being sold for $65 that contains content apparently all from Wikipedia. This sort of this tends to discourage editors like me. See User talk:Oldtaxguy#Pirating of Wikipedia content for profit. Can we do anything? Oldtaxguy (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

One person is not a consensus, bright boy. It makes no sense to cram an theoretically infinitely large list into a slightly less theoretically infinite list. If you wish to get a third opinion, go do so, but try not to unnecessarily remove content from Wikipedia. There are several entries on the list of irrational numbers that are not in the list of numbers. Please do not destroy this information so recklessly. Hope you have a nice day! LutherVinci (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

ThreeTwo against you, actually (plus the editor who restored the redirect). Looks like a consensus to me. And, as you are the only source for the additional entries, as far as I can tell. You're welcome to merge those which belong on the list to the main article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, I've lost track of the plot. Is this user trolling or is there a language barrier? Perhaps a little bit of both? Semi-protection might help, no? Viriditas (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Communications difficulties ... See wide variety of article Talk pages and notes within View History of articles. 99.109.124.74 (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if a language barrier, but the anon in question has been creating links to improve connectivity, regardless of accuracy or importance, for years. Recently, he/they has been WP:OVERLINKING, as well as creating easter eggs, and creating WP:REDLINKS to people and things he considers important, whether or not relevant to the topic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I notice that you're well on your way to an edit war regarding whether "United States" should be linkified on the article I mention above. I would encourage you to familiarize yourself with the policy at Wikipedia:Linking#What generally should not be linked. --AdamRoach (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, when I reverted the 99.* anon, it appeared he was linking United States, rather than unlinking it. May be a system error. Sorry about that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems you have reverted my edit on Low-carbon economy (discussion). Revision as of 12:34, 27 February 2011

The article did not contain any reference of decarbonisation, which can be a long-term process of a low carbon economy to a non-carbon economy or to a clean technology economy.

Please explain why you removed: "A low carbon economy can be an economy that is in the process of decarbonisation" ?

— RW Marloe (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

[[clean technology|decarbonisation]] is an easter egg, even if your definition of decarbonisation is accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Do not edit war even if you believe you are right, on the basis of your emotional opinion or ideological view. Wikipedia is a fact based encyclopaedia.

Wiktionary: decarbonization and to decarbonize, is not a in-joke or buzzword, the definition is; An industrial process of technological adaptation or evolution. Which is not mentioned in the article. — RW Marloe (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:ITCZ ? 166.137.142.40 (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Has suddenly appeared - I doubt he is a "new user" (using "again" in an edit summary!) on the Charles Koch article. Collect (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

here

Tag for automatic archiving. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, regarding this edit of yours I would like to inform you about WP:FOOTERS. With your edit you move interwikis away from other interwikis and above categories. The correct order is Defaultsort -> Categories -> Stub templates -> Interlanguage links. If you have questions on th manual of style please contact me. Wikipedia makes an effort to have interwikis (including those marked with Fa which means "featured article") together in order to be easily detected by interwiki bots and updated regulatory. Happy editing! -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Following the template redirects is specifically discouraged by the guidelines. Keeping the interwikis together is an insignificant change which can be done automatically; following the template redirects is something that should not be done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, we've had some discussions (and occasional disagreements) over neutrality of some content. My apologies if you're busy--if the "involuntary vacation" tag still holds, feel free to pass the football to someone else. I've recently come across several posts and edits that, in my opinion, are heavily promotional--either advertising or propaganda--and need not merely a correction, but some kind of an independent guiding hand to temper the reaction of the most frequent posters. One is the ACTA page where J.V. Martin has been largely removing all information critical of the organization, whether supported or not. Martin appears to be a person vested in the organization (irrespectively of his name similarity to the organization's founder, J.L. Martin) and has added several rounds of "corrections" based entirely on organization's promotional literature. I don't want to engage in edit war with him because 1) I don't believe it is productive and 2) I've observed the organization in action, including interactions between ACTA, NAS and the Federalist Society, first-hand and thus might be tainted by "original research". Note, in particular, that Stephen Balch, who is on the board of ACTA, is the founder and long-term president of the NAS. Conversely, J.L. Martin used to be a frequent presenter and panelist at NAS meetings. Both organizations have clear ideological bias that they try to hide with self-promotional platitudes. ACTA publications have been routinely cited for lack of methodological cohesion or even complete failure of methodology--e.g., Defending Civilization was little more than a cherry-picked collection of isolated, decontextualized quotations, set in an inflammatory framework.

My second observation involved the article on Grimsby Traditional Smoked Fish and several other articles where its author added a paragraph or two linking back to GTSF. The article reads like barely edited promotional brochure. It's not even a question of bias--it's a desire to sell the product. The only "external references" are to members of the Grimsby coop and the sole "news" article might have been placed advertisement as well (it's not entirely clear). I added some corrections in "Smoked Fish", followed by further corrections by others, but the main source remains largely untouched.

Again, my apologies if I am disrupting your regular activities. I hope your wife is better and you have time to help on this.

Please feel free to remove this post if you find it unhelpful. Alex.deWitte (talk) 10:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a proposed Topic Ban for Blackash and Slowart on Tree shaping related articles at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents As you have had some involvement with these editors in question, you may wish to comment. Blackash have a chat 00:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your wife's surgery. I hope she's better. I actually am new to this and promise to cite every comment I make about this family. I'm still trying to figure out how to add footnotes. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyrantsalot (talk • contribs) 01:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You have some discussion at err... an article called "SATAN RITUAL ABUSE" (strange title huh?) 173.183.79.81 (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Arthur, would you please help me and in so doing help clarify the article. The latest edit which I added was simply to clarify that the tax taken was sum of the losses suffered by each part of the economy impacted by the tax. This is the point made in the second paragraph where the example of how a $0.50 tax is shared between the supplier and the buyer, the buyer pays an extra $0.20 and the seller loses $0.30, the sum being equal to the $0.50 tax imposed.

To allow the example but delete my edit, where I state that the sum of the losses is equal to the tax taken, appears to be inconsistent as, so far as I can tell, they make the same point.

I think your objection to my edit is that taxation causes greater loss in the economy than simply the sum of the losses as a direct result of the tax. I'm just guessing here so I may be quite wrong and be missing some other fundamental point.

Kind regards - PaulPaul Hield (talk) 06:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Arthur -- I don't want to get into an edit war with you, so here are two more references, with video, of David Koch's organization Americans For Prosperity explaining to Koch himself how they've been organizing the Tea Party movement:

DeMelle, Brandon (October 13, 2010). "Koch brothers' Tea Party connections confirmed". Grist. Retrieved March 10, 2011.

Goldenberg, Suzanne (October 13, 2010). "Tea Party movement: Billionaire Koch brothers who helped it grow". The Guardian. Retrieved March 10, 2011.

(here's another ref)

I hope you'll agree that's sufficient to restore my edit, with those refs. --The Cunctator (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Grist appears never to have been reliable. If any reference to it is included in Wikipedia, and it's brought to my attention, I'll likely challenge it.
2. The Guardian reference says that the Kochs fund (and are proud of, but do not control, technically) AfP, and that "organisations tracking money in politics" call AfP a Tea Party organization. In a surprising (for a British newspaper) display of tact, the article carefully does not affirm that AfP is a Tea Party organization. It also contains an allegation of criminal activity: "Koch Industries has donated at least $5.9m to political candidates". Now, as we're not quoting that statement, we are not alleging criminal activity, so I suppose it's appropriate.
3. The WSJ blog entry (I don't see any evidence that it's supported by the editorial staff at the WSJ) appears only to quote the YouTube video, and the Fink restatement of Kochs' position doesn't appear to me to be a restatement. It doesn't actually say that the previous Koch/Fink press release was inaccurate.

Reference (2) does support the statement that the Kochs fund AfP, which is called a TP organization. If you want to contrast that statement to the one that the Kochs deny funding TP organisations, as the quote in the WSJ blog seems to report Koch commenting on the contrast, and a direct quote, even in a blog, is likely to be accurate.

You're welcome to reinsert a statement consistent with what is actually said in the articles. I don't consider it important to do so, but I won't remove a statement actually supported by reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the problem that the articles don't have the explicit transcript of the video? Americans For Prosperity hasn't just been "called" a tea party organization, Americans For Prosperity explicitly promotes its organization of tea parties. (e.g. "Americans for Prosperity will be hosting the National Taxpayer Tea Party at the Capitol." and NJ Taxpayer Tea Party). Here, for example, is another news story: The state chapter of Americans for Prosperity, the conservative anti-tax, smaller government group, is trying to get the North Carolina tea party movement organized. That's 30 seconds of googling. The fount is endless.

I'm not sure how to interpret this as anything other than supporting the tea party movement. It's certainly a fact that Koch claimed at one point that he had no connection to the Tea Party movement, but there's ample evidence against that claim, and no evidence to support it. Am I missing something?

Koch's denial of what is a prima-facie obvious truth shouldn't be in the introductory paragraph. --The Cunctator (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:V are clear, as is WP:BLP. For added seasoning I recommenr WP:KNOW to cover your "prima facie obvious truth" comment. Collect (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution. I'm quite aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please believe me when I say that I have a pretty comprehensive understanding of the epistemological issues regarding contribution to Wikipedia.

While Koch is on record denying involvement in the Tea Party, he is also on record this year praising the Tea Party movement. Koch: "There are some extremists there, but the rank and file are just normal people like us. And I admire them. It’s probably the best grassroots uprising since 1776 in my opinion." Koch's statements about the Tea Party movement -- which are few and far between, and certainly without any sense that they should be considered statements of fact -- should by WP:NPOV not weighted equally with the documentary record in WP:RS about his support for the Tea Party movement.

Here are just a few more reliable sources that David Koch's Americans For Prosperity is a key organization in supporting the tea party movement: C-SPAN recording of the 2009 Defending the American Dream Summit, with David Koch and tea party organizers; C-SPAN recording of the 2010 Defending the American Dream Summit, with David Koch and tea party organizers; Tea Party: The Awakening; A New American Tea Party; Mad As Hell Sellout; Getting It Done; Common Nonsense ...

I hope this is sufficient evidence that my edit was well-founded, adhering more closely to NPOV than the previous version, and should not have been reverted.

p.s. One side note; I don't understand why Arthur thinks that the Guardian alleged criminal activity of the Kochs. It's entirely legal for corporations to contribute to political candidates, through political action committees. --The Cunctator (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If a reliable source notes that Koch approves of the Tea Party, that fact can be added. As hardly any of the sources you have ever provided are reliable, I'm not sure which one might do so. (As an aside, I wouldn't consider an "ambush interview" reliable, even if published in an unimpeachable source. I'm not at all sure that "Lee Fang" of ThinkProgress is a reliable source, to select your first supporting comment.) Even if reliable, it belongs only in Koch's and possibly the politics article, not in Koch Industries or Koch Family.

As for AfP supporting the Tea Party, the C-SPAN videos seem reasonable, if the information is actually there. However, supporting Tea Party organizations doesn't make it a Tea Party organization, unless a notable source makes the connection. You've misquoted a number of sources, so far, so I'd want a time-mark and quote. (I can't figure out how to search the transcript.) However, that belongs only in the AfP and politics articles, not Koch Family Foundations or any individual articles on the Kochs.

It's a matter of semantics, but a PAC is not the same as the sponsoring corporation; the corporation controls the PAC, but cannot contribute to it. We should make that distinction, even if the sources do not.

I'm afraid that, because of the number of clearly unreliable and misquoted sources you've supplied, I'm not going to take the time to check which of the new ones you've added might be appropriate. Any of your edits which contain a single misquote will be reverted in full. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

In an interview, Robert Eastlund, the son of the HAARP technology inventor Bernard Eastland said his father intended HAARP to be used as a defense technology and to control weather in arrid places like Ethiopia to ensure a healthy environment. exact link of time mark 24:29 interview segment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDfwHU7Cw6g#t=1469 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.73.187 (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Arthur: When you get a chance, can you please respond to the following post?[4] Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The same day I find two articles on this 2011 End Times thing, I find someone has created Alternative archaeology and tried to redirect Pseudoarchaeology to it. Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It's called a WP:POVFORK. If you don't like an article, create another one with a different POV and similar name, and redirect the original article to the new one. It's done frequently, but it's usually caught. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Citing from the guidelines: "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable"

Undicisettembre is a weblog held by a known professional journalist and hoax debunker, aided by professionals (engineers, pilots, firefighters, etc, as you can see from the blog description). The journalist in question has a debunking program on swiss radio and published several books regarding hoaxes. He's the main italian speaking journalist on the matter, and is present on the main italian and swiss networks when talking about hoaxes.

Furthermore, the second paragraph was sourced through the waybackmachine, it was not a blog entry.

Therefore, i'm undoing your deletion. Feel free to discuss it on the talk page.200.67.138.7 (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC) edit: sorry, it looked like i was logged in but clearly i wasn't.Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 14:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall a weblog held by a well-known professional journalist as being allowed. I'll have to check on that. (Added: WP:SPS makes no mention of it.)

The fake engineer is synthesis; that he had been listed on their site is one fact (properly sourced to the archive listing), and that he doesn't exist is another. A separate reliable source has to note the anomaly. Not that I think there's anything accurate on their web site.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to substitute my opinion for Arthur's, but I do have something to say on the subject. Some "professional journalists" are "well-known" for their capacity to produce hoaxes rather than debunk them. And even people who are professional in one capacity, may well be unprofessional--and outright kooky--in another. This is not a reason to dismiss all their writing, but it is a good reason to be skeptical. Even if Wiki generally allows writing by "well-known professional journalists", this does not absolve them of responsibility to provide accurate information. Perpetuating known hoaxes and conspiracy theories falls well outside that realm. Consider, for example James Watson, who is a well-known professional researcher--a Nobel Prize winner, in fact. When it comes to matters of history of biology--or perhaps even some modern issues in biology--he can be trusted to provide an account that's worth consideration. But when he switches to racial theory, there is a problem--his occasional racist statements are well documented and indicate propensity toward racial bias. In any case, "may be acceptable" is a very low-pass criterion, simply indicating that some degree of original research is allowed for some people, but is by no means automatically acceptable. Even these "professionals" are not above review and revision. I am a professional researcher, with a background very similar to Arthur's. And occasionally I find myself going back to materials that I posted and asking, "How could this go up without documentation??" Arthur and I have clashed over issues of original research and bias on several occasions, but I would not take what he says lightly. IMO, on this issue, he's on the ball. Alex.deWitte (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion has been archived, and the article still states "unreliable sources". I modified the article to reflect that on one link the journalist himself is stating that he was the fake engineer. I just wondered if the "unrealiable source" has to stay there indefinetly, if i need to bring other sources claiming the expertise of Attivissimo in the hoax debunking field, or what needs to be done... thanks in advance. p.s. hope everything's fine with your wife, and good luck!Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 16:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

There really should be a third-party reliable source for the information about the fake engineer, but if Attivissimo has the same credibility, as, for example, The Skeptical Inquirer, I'd be willing to accept it. There are some "Truthers" who might consider that questionable, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I’ll try Due to the very nature of conspiracy theories movements, though, the vast majority of stuff I have is from blogs or websites, since the conspiracy world has found a fertile terrain in the internet. No debates, no proof needed, etc. I’ll see what I can do. Thanks.Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 17:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Since you seem to be a major watcher/whitewasher of conservative articles, please explain this one:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Americans_for_Prosperity&diff=418735163&oldid=418662266

The Koch name is all over that article, as founders, funders, board members, etc. Some of that applies to many of the other articles which were reverted. You admit to having a COI because of your own political POV, and maybe everyone does in their own ways, but it shouldn't cause you to remove information that is well documented. That's unwikipedian. Should we create a subcategory for the Koch family category that can include the numerous articles on subjects which the Koch family are heavily invested, control, or fund? Please provide a solution as a sign of good will. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Koch family was originally intended for members of the Koch family, not for the organizations. Some of the ones organizations you added would fit well in Category:Koch family foundations, but not all, and the boundary between those which are and those which aren't is difficult to determine. For instance, Armey's organization is no longer Koch's, and there is no current credible association between the Kochs and that organization. Those organizations which are still controlled by the Kochs might fit in related categories, but clear evidence would have to be provided for each in the article. It is absurd to say that the TPm is controlled by anyone, so it shouldn't be in any such category. "Support" or "funding" are inadequate to support categorization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Never mind the subcategory question; I put AfP, CSE, and Mercatus Center back, but removed some others which had been there previously, where the connection seems too tenuous to categorize then as being associated with the Koch family. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think that David Koch's funding the creation of the Tea Party is justification enough? What about his father's founding role in the JBS? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

He didn't fund "the creation of the Tea Party", and I don't think it would be adequate if he did; and Fred being "one of the (12) founding members" of the JBS doesn't seem an adequate connection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is the original intended: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Koch_family&oldid=49307217 thus not what Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin states above. 99.112.215.201 (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency, I wonder if you'd weigh in on a similar debate at SPLC where an editor claims that a source is reliable because it has been reported by another source which is reliable. (previous & related thread). Though I'm still not convinced this argument wholly applies to the Koch Ind./Greenpeace context, it seems that another editor is making the same argument which you assumed I was making. Respectfully, -PrBeacon (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Within your response to my comment on Original Research at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Arbcom decision on MHP: OR vs exposition in mathematics, you said "The problem is that an allowable rephrasing in most fields becomes OR in mathematics, as even a change in notation does not fall in the 'routine arithmetic calculation' exemption in Principles 11.". I have not been able to figure out to what you were referring when you said "Principles 11". Please explain it or give a link. Thank you. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Principles (11.0 and 11.1) in the proposed ArbCom decision. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. You were referring to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem/Proposed decision#Original research (Mathematics). Somehow, I was looking at the wrong file (probably the talk page). Sorry for bothering you and thanks again. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be having an edit war with an anonymous IP on this article. Stop reverting and discuss please.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The IP frequently adds material sourced only to his imagination. This addition, in particular, is not sourced to the reference in question, although it may have a source in the article he's referring to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking at a post you made a few years ago here. I'm not sure I follow what you mean about the 'products' if you want to call them that, working out differently depending on whether you treat them as real numbers or as rationals. I'd appreciate your time at the talk page in question to help me hammer out your meaning before I begin to merge the articles. Thanks, Cliff (talk) 07:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, is it really necessary? Since the claim passes WP:V and multiple reliable sources describe LP as third largest, I think this phrasing is unnecessary. Thoughts? --GalupK (talk) 09:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is. All the sources are old, and Ballot Access, also a reliable source, says 5th (and probably means 6th). I reverted the addition of Ballot Access because it was ambiguous, but I'm sure there is a reliable source which keeps track properly of the major minor parties. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I understand your point. How about adding some latest sources? I've found some latest (2010-2011) sources:

• Encyclopedia of the U.S. Government and the Environment, page link, 2010
• American Government and Politics Today 2011-2012 Edition 15e, link, 2011
• African Americans and the Presidency, link, 2010 --GalupK (talk) 10:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on IPv6. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I tried to stop it by commenting on the talk page, but you did not stop reverting. Jasper Deng (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

13:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Shrenujparekh (talk) i need genuine help..it seems that my facts/misc/info is misunderstood/interpreted in a wrong way i have written an article stating a new type of mean{releted to maths}(anti geomtric mean and anti-harmonic mean)

(don't hesitate to read plz)

who AM I? i am Shrenuj Parekh,india,mumbai.i am a small kid aged 17 years old. i love mathematics and aim to be a contributor(in terms of articles,innovations,inventions,formula's,etc.)in the field of Maths.

History of wiki contributed articles: i created an article on "anti geometric and anti harmonic mean"(a month back around) it was deleted reason(UNSOURCED ORIGINAL DOCUMENT) SOURCE WAS MY BRAIN..............how could i ever link it with an external link?

i had gone a study tour in some town are(via college cause club).........so could not edit the page within 7 days and my article got deleted

a solution was sort by me.i wrote an article on my website relating to the same(aweeklyriddle.blogspot.com)....dated 0ct 16

. . . i decided to write the article again with an external link........... the twist in my story.........my blog has been shifted to (aweeklyriddle.blogspot.com(does not exist as of now)) TO (picturequizquestions.blogspot.com).for better traffic

WHAT DO I WANT? my page is facing a chance of deletion.plz follow the link below to know more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_71#Anti-geometric_mean_and_anti-harmonic_mean_needs_rescuing

copyright issue{*don't tell this to anyone*} i am a 17 year old who likes to show off!!(just like any other teenage boy...) so in an attempt to impress peers i wrote"COPYRIGHT SHRENUJ 2010".........FOR MERE SHOW off and to impress friends...........i have no copyright,in short........

To Shrenujparekh: I am sorry, but we cannot accept contributions which are discovered or made up by you. Everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable secondary sources, that is, you must have found it in a book or magazine by someone who is trusted by the community. This is part of what defines Wikipedia as an encyclopedia rather than just a blog.

If your idea is correct and important, it is very likely that someone else has already discovered it. You might want to search the internet for it. If you can find it elsewhere, then check whether it is already in Wikipedia. If it is available elsewhere from a reliable secondary source and not already in Wikipedia, then you can create an article on it. In that case, you should provide a citation or link to the source you found. JRSpriggs (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I re-reverted, because your edit made no sense to me: to me it seems obvious that the base-10 logarithm is exactly what is meant there. Please take a look, and if you're still convinced my edit was wrong, we can try to figure out why we disagree.

Thanks,
—Ruakh_TALK 02:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Arthur, I see you seem to have a bit of a problem with my edits or with me personally, as you seem to be following EVERY edit I make, even if legitimate and are referenced, such as the edit in 2052. There are dozens of articles which read similar to that of Georges Roux (Assyriologist), but I don't see you or anyone else persistently editing them or reverting edits which are referenced, so I can only assume that this problem is with me. I would appreciate feedback or thoughts, as any edits I make are referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XRiamux (talk • contribs) 17:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I explained, twice, why your edit to 2052 doesn't meet community standards. 2039 and 2045 are more clear.

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

And, when an editor persists in making inappropriate edits in articles I watch, I check his/her other edits. Most of the edits you reverted in Georges Roux (assyriologist) were clearly appropriate, although it would be nice if you addressed the notability issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Colony (U.S. season 2). Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dream Focus (talk • contribs) 18:07, February 2, 2011

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, Dr. Joe Gallian, who runs the Univ. of Minnesota Duluth REU program maintains a webpage called "Putnam Fellows Career Path" (http://www.d.umn.edu/~jgallian/putnamfel/PF.html) where he has updates on where past Putnam fellows are today (including their achievements and such). The database listed your "Professional Appointment" as "Financial adviser (2005)". I was assuming he obtained this information by contacting you directly, but I guess I was wrong. Based on your LinkedIn profile, I have updated your Wikipedia entry to include positions in industry which you've held in the past. I also included this list on Dr. Gallian's "Putnam Fellows Career Path" (http://www.d.umn.edu/~jgallian/putnamfel/PF.html) Mozart20d (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I would advise against using a web site under my control (my linkedin page) to support edits to the article about me. No offense, as I want accurate information in the article, but my statements are not reliable except under WP:SELFPUB. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't think about that. I've gone ahead and reverted the edit. Still, it's nice to know what you've been up to, my friends and I have wondered about this for ages----Mozart20d (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Please could you comment on the veracity of the claims made in the new entry about Jacob Barnett ? You are a mathematician and an ex-child prodigy so your input on this issue would carry a lot of weight.--Mozart20d (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia talk:A nice cup of tea and a sit down, why do you think/know those IP Users are the same person? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Same edits, same bad grammar, same WP:OVERLINKING in edit summaries, same easter eggs. What more would one need? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Might I ask why? 212.68.15.66 (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:RY for the host city; recent consensus that planned spacecraft launches go only to year in space flight; and even more recent consensus that solar eclipses in future years are not notable. Consensus is either in WT:YEARS or WT:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

All right. Cheers! 212.68.15.66 (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

When you get a chance, can you please respond to this?[5] Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Rubin, Would you be disturbed if I changed the title of the section Talk:Tetration#Inverse function articles to Talk:Tetration#Merger proposal. Since that is where the merge is being discussed, I think it is worthwhile. Awaiting your answer, Cliff (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Please leave an anchor for the other tag, as that's how it's linked in various pages, including some ANI archives. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

done, thanks. Cliff (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Could I send you a brief email about an admin-related topic which would benefit from discretion? My email is listed on the top of my talk page. Thanks, Ocaasi ^c 08:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Notice that the "toolbox" box of links next to user talk pages contains an entry for "E-mail this user" unless the user has disabled it via his preferences. Thus one can receive e-mails from other users without revealing his e-mail address to the world. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks JRS, but since the whole MW 1.17 update, my .js has been bonkers and nothing is working as it should. So I have no such link in my Toolbox, believe it or not. I have a dedicated (throwaway) wiki email account, so Arthur can contact me there, and it's set up through the Special:Email feature, so that can work, too. Thanks for the help, Ocaasi ^c 09:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, I took the liberty of changing the typestyle in your !vote so your meaning was clear for those who speed read. Please look at my change and revert if you don’t concur. Greg L (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Maybe if you had taken a read of the last comment made by me, on the Talk:2010 article you would know that I stopped and apologised. Maybe if you saw the latest 2010 article history, you would know that I let Julia Gillard be removed. I did not abuse 3RR. You could have told me nicely that what I was doing was wrong, instead of making me look 'foolish'. I had the facts; they werent taken too well on the talk page. So I said I wouldn't continue. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 15:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not a misuse, unless you've been previously warned. You had 3 reverts in a hour; even if you feel you're correct, you should have stopped previously unless removing a BLP violation or blatant vandalism. If you're aware of 3RR, you can and should remove the warning, but it's not a misuse. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period." -- I may be a little thick headed for a 14 year old, but when I know I am wrong, I'll apologise and admit it. With all due respect in this case I don't feel that I am in the wrong. If you notice, you'll see I performed 3 reverts, not 4. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 16:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

1. See WP:Edit warring; "3RR" is a bright line, but edit warring not in violation of 3RR can still lead to blocks.
2. If your edit of 0500 UTC was a revert (which it may, technically, be), then that makes 4.

You did stop before the warning, but it still seems reasonable to remind you of the policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Never in my 5 months here have I had a User give me a warning message. All other users did the correct thing and tell me nicely, better yet do their research, maybe read my latest contributions on the issue. I find that offensive. Dramatic that does sound, but it's not every day you get slapped with a warning (for something I didn't do). 3RR clearly states more than 3 in 24 hrs.

1. It had been more than a month

2. My latest edits were based on the WP:RY Policy.

Barring the 3RR mistake, I specifically apologised to everyone. I put my words in Italics so people would notice it. And this is the wonderful message I get back?

I have absolutely had it with always apologising first, on Wikipedia and in the outer society. Don't people know that there is always two sides to every story; or that it takes two to tango?

I'm not taking this out of line. I'm describing what the situation is.

To some it goes in one ear out the other, hope not for you: I am sorry. I am sorry if I had offended you; annoyed you; caused any inconvenience. I am just sorry...I don't know what else to say... -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 16:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Please discuss the relavent reverts made to Portal:Current events/2011 April 6 with 99.112.214.205 (talk · contribs) rather than continuing the dispute over minor wording issues. Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not a minor wording issue. 99* is misquoting the sources, and I suspect he knows that. I've certainly mentioned it enough on relevant web pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thank you for your work on the September 11 attacks article! MONGO 23:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Greetings Arthur,

Firstly, I would like to express my regret at the confrontational disagreements you and I have recently had over various mathematics pages. I decided to join Wikipedia, not for the purposes of seeking arguments, but to contribute to and improve this encyclopedia, and I am enthusiastic about doing so.

Having said that, your last message to me contained some material which I feel obliged to respond to. And since the editing itself has stopped, taking the matter here seemed more appropriate. In your last message to me you said,

"As you well know, course notes are not considered a reliable source; and the reals form a topological group, so a_n → x is equivalent to a_n − x → 0, and the statement generalized becomes 1/n → 0, which seems simpler than x + 1/n → x. But that is trivia. I'm just pointing out that your latest change is a style change, rather than a substantive change."

First of all, I have to say that I resent your tone. Although I have lurked and read articles here for some time, I have only recently begun to edit, and so as a matter of fact I did not 'well know' anything about course notes with regard to Wikipedia's reliable source policy. I was providing information in good faith, in order to persuade you, through rational argument, of something which you seemed to be denying. Furthermore, the material I provided did contain a proof, and I am sure that you have the mathematical ability to evaluate it and judge its validity! Incidentally, I would be grateful if you would be kind enough to point out where exactly course notes are mentioned on the page you linked to me. (I'm not saying they're not there, but it's a big page with a lot of information and I'd be grateful if you could thus be more specific.)

Finally, I must just point out that if my latest change is nothing more than a stylistic change, then so was yours when you changed what I had originally put in the first place, (in the process falsely accusing me of having made a serious error.)Telanian183 (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, if you're going to add explanatory material, you need to be sure it's correct; otherwise, in a mathematical paper it would be worse than useless. As for "course notes", they fall under WP:SPS; unless prepared by a recognized expert (with published papers in the field), they are not usable as references.

I, personally, consider

f(x + a_n), where a_n → 0

clearer than

f(a_n), where a_n → x,

and there's no difference in the reals. f(x + 1/n) also fits better in the former grouping. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

But the material that I added to the page was correct, so what's your point?Telanian183 (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe not kidding :). I can't access the source, but others seem to agree: [6] and [7], for what they're worth. That's one way to screw up your needle. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Upon second glance, I think you removed the dab for vinyl and left the chocolate part. I'm confused. Anyway, I undid it and added refs to support the chocolate record. (This has been a very strange 2 minutes.) Revert me if I am wrong. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering if you had a reason to mark this[8] as a minor edit. Removing content is described as an example of when not to mark an edit as minor. Thanks. Shootbamboo (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

 GFHandel.   00:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, just dropping by to let you know I removed some of your tagging on Aboud El Zomor. In my assessment, the article was not eligible for CSD A7 (even the old version) because a claim that he was a participant in the successful assassination of a head of state indicates why the subject is important, and therefor the article survives criteria A7. I mostly agree with the remaining tags you placed, however I have now removed them after improving the article. Feel free to bring the article to AfD if you still think it needs to be deleted after the changes. Monty₈₄₅ 17:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Whittemore Peterson Institute ‎. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Byanose (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:DTTR. Arthur Rubin is not edit warring. However, you might want to look in a mirror. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I was going to create an artical for every decade of the 22nd Century, to me it seemed silly to stop at the 2110's as every century before it goes from begining to end, I agree to go into the 23rd Century would be rediculous, but why stop 1/5 of the way through, what if I combined decades such as 2140s/2150s 2160s/2170s 2180s/2190s, would that be acceptable, please give me an answer.

-user talk:Phoenix500 —Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC).

I seem to recall that 2110s was created early in the 2010s, on the basis that something could be said about decades starting within 100 years, but not beyond that.

Combining decades is clearly not acceptable.

And I'm going to revert 2120s, if that's your justification. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Now I have reverted the 2120s artical back into existeence, before you delete my contributions, please consult with me and maybe we can compromise. User:Phoenix500 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC).

I will however assure you that i will not bring back the 2130s artical until our agreement has been reached, we will not editwar.-(talk) 10:54, 22 April 2011 (PDT)

I still don't think it's appropriate. Please communicate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Arthur Rubin,

I'm new to wikipedia, so bear with me. Today you undid an earlier edit of mine. In the comments section you said that it "introduces a statement not supported by the sources." But my edit was simple a stylistic one. The original sentence read, "He is a major patron of the arts; a funder of conservative and libertarian political causes, including some organizations that fund some organizations within the American Tea Party movement." I changed it to read, "He is a major patron of the arts; a funder of conservative and libertarian political causes, including some organizations that fund the American Tea Party movement." Any help or guidance you can give me to understand the problem will be much appreciated. Thanks. Churchillreader (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If "funding" were transitive, or if any organization that funds a Tea Party organization were considered a Tea Party organization, then that would be an acceptable restatement.

For the first, if I contribute to United Way, and United Way contributes to, say, the Cato Institute, that doesn't mean I contribute to the Cato Institute, does it?

For the second, if I contribute to a Tea Party organization, that doesn't make me a Tea Party organiztion, does it?

Details are important, especially since most of the article is sourced to extreme critics of the Kochs and the Tea Party, who are also journalists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks, Arthur. I appreciate your help. Churchillreader (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I now have an idea of what I can and can not create, I am new at this, I have improved some articals, and apparently screwed up on most of them, that is why I had a friend of mine delete some of my articals, but a few I am willing to try to fix, out of all my articals I feel these decade articals I am having the most success with, as I am researching off this website as well as on, I will go no further than the 2190s, all I request is give me the chance to reach my goal first before you revert them. After these few decades of the future I will move to the past, as our website offers only as far back as the 1690s BC, I will aim for 2490s BC but this will take several months, let these few future decades be my test before I waste my time on 1000 years that will be deleted no matter what.

user talk:Phoenix500 18:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have now completed up to the 2190s, alll years 2120-2199 have been redirected to their proper decade, I understand your concern about redoing the template to aquire remaining decades, if you can contact someone to do just that, the rest of the work will already be done for them, you just give mt the heads up when I can start going back in time before the 1690s BC, at my user talk page Phoenix500 - 19:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC).

Hi there. You nominated this article for deletion back in 2008. The discussion ended in 'no consensus', but I agree with you that the subject is non-notable and have renominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Eric Davidson (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 62 (number). Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harley Hudson (talk • contribs) 14:36, April 27, 2011

I wasn't going to bring this up, but you are removing information against current consensus established at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers, and are one revert ahead of me. WP:BRD suggests that you should have stopped editing until a consensus for your point of view was established. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I tagged the section for trivia and when after a week no attention was paid I removed the trivia. You reverted it without discussion. I reverted and opened a discussion. You reverted again and then pulled the fig leaf of BRD over yourself as if I hadn't already tried to initiate a discussion. You're the one who continued to blindly edit after a discussion was opened with no attempt to reach a consensus. No three of my reversions are within 24 hours. The initial removal was 4/25 00:05, first reversion was 4/25 20:30 (followed immediately by opening a discussion), second reversion was 4/26 18:29 (including a note that I had opened the discussion, which you had previously ignored), third reversion was 4/27 14:33. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, could you please explain to me what the anchor you added to this article does and why you put it in? I read the template page, but, unfortunately, I don't get it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

{{anchor|UK super-injunctions|UK superinjunction|UK super-injunction}} allows Injunction#UK super-injunctions, Injunction#UK superinjunction, and Injunction#UK super-injunction to link to the same place as Injunction#UK superinjunctions. As there were already some redirects pointing to the hyphenated form, I thought it better to add the anchor than to modify the links. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Please reference your claims and assertions on the talk page when you make them. Your signal to noise level has been rather low, you simply make to many recollection errors, and statements that contradict the basic facts of the case. Do please check first if your recollections are correct - instead of blindly opposing V's comments, which is the impression that is left when your assertions turn out to be incorrect. I too find his general agressive attitude problematic as well - but i can't fault him for not backing up his statements with reliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Or said in another way: It is rather hard to determine if V's attitude is a result of repeated faulty arguments, or if it is the reverse (where the faulty arg's would be intended as provocation). And that is a serious problem - right? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

THE ARTİCLES ARMENİAN MOVİNG AND ARMENİAN ROOTS WROTE ON REAL FACTS AND EVENTS.AND THIS TEXT IS FROM THE FAMOUS SOURCES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasan from Karabakh (talk • contribs) 11:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Arthur,

Back from a long break, and it looks like as usual, shenanigans are occurring. Any ideas on how to get 99.X to become a useful member of the community? I would start by saying that they need to:

• read WP:RS
• stop making demands
• stop sockpuppetry

I think we collectively have no time for this brand of distraction, and either 99.X shapes up, or we need to find a way to get him/her to stop wasting everyone's time.

Anyway, I won't be on all that often, but at least you know that someone whose viewpoint on the issue at hand lies opposite yours is irritated as well, and hopes that it is possible solve the distraction without too much effort.

(Aside: to this, you are, in fact, a mathematician, which is quite different... though honestly I often wish I knew more applied math for numerical solutions.)

Awickert (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Arthur,

Please, you stated here [9] that " all references which claim mathematical value are by B, and note that it doesn't have mathematical value". I think I am missing something! About value, I am not an expert, but are you sure about the references who are by B. (you mean a single fellow, I guess) ?? did you verify the 29 references I collected here[10], and which were the most numerous for the pages I investigated  ?? Thank you for correcting any mistake I could have done on this item.Rirunmot (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The 12 that were there at first were all by Boubaker (B) himself, either under that name or a pseudonym. As Boubaker does use pseudonyms, I'm not going to make the effort to verify that all the papers are not by "B", or a pseudonym, or a colleague. The burden of proof is on the person claiming notability that he's not a legend in his own mind. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sir Arthur, you are not going to make the effort ..Ok, do you allow me doing that for you ... Kindly see (unless you just do not want to know) i.e. ref 8 [11], The authors, Eminent Professor Paul Barry et al. Website presents as Chapter 6: (p 23): The Boubaker Polynomials... In i.e. Reference 15 [12] , Professor A. Yildirim Homepage presents (page 40) the boubaker polynomials as a tool for solving nonlinear science problems... and so on ...

What is your opinion?? should you need more data??Rirunmot (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

So, they're not all 'B', now. Some of them Bs students. As for Barry, even if the Chebyshev-Boubaker polynomials were notable, that wouldn't mean the Boubaker polynomials are notable. Barry doesn't seem to think so; he wrote "so-called Boubaker polynomials." But, I'm not sure that even those polynomials deserve more than a paragraph of Chebyshev polynomials. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for precision. Now it is clear that your first look was very quick. The last reference by A. Moron establishes links between boubaker ploynomials and fermat!! so the problem of link with polynomials is more complicated than what I could see... Please just help on pointing the references you think "Some of them Bs students". I can check, but since from different locations (Venezuela, China, Turkey, Pakistan, Sweden, France, Spain... ) and with accessible homepages, it seems difficult to say that, doesn't it?? --Rirunmot (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Dear Arthur,

As busy as you seem, your opinion will be a valuable one at [[13]] thanks--Rirunmot (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope being a murder suspect isn't a ploy to bolster your intimidation points as an administrator. ;) 155.99.230.134 (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Not me, I'm afraid. I am physically in the same time zone as he is, at the moment, but that will change Sunday. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that you contributed to page Fraction (mathematics), linked from page I edit: Whole number. I have made a reasonable article, with many references, but my edits are reverted and they say that my actions are vandalism!!!! Now they threat to block me. I don't know what to do!!!! This is sick. Max Longint (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Public opinion on climate change. 99.35.13.248 (talk) 05:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur,

You removed an image I posted (cover of Canticle for Leibowitz) to the article on Science Fiction. I can understand the rationale behind it, I suppose - not fair use because the article is not about that novel - but what I don't understand is how the other two images in that section - covers of The Left Hand of Darkness and Neuromancer are in fact permitted to be there, since that rationale would seem to apply to them as well. I'd also be curious to hear why the in-text reference to Canticle was superfluous enough to be deleted; it seems like a fairly canonical novel for the subgenre. I'm relatively new to this, so any information you can offer would be helpful. Thanks! Sindinero (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. I'll take care of the other images (after verifying that copyright has not been released), please re-add Canticle for Leibowitz to the appropriate section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You should be able to find some illustrations of science fiction works that are old enough that copyright has expired, e.g. the illustrations at Jules Verne. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, you said at the Climategate page 'For conspiracies, I accept that the some sources support conspiracy theory, and few (if any) contradict it.' This is wrong.

1) If you look at V's sources [14] he has provided only one, Information World Review, that actually uses the loaded term, 'conspiracy theory'. All of his others use 'conspiracy' without a 'theory' straight after it, i.e. in the sense of 'allegations of a conspiracy'. I would then ask is an IT magazine, IWR, a reliable source in any case?

2) Even if it is, the fact that 'conspiracy theory' is largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning it is, therefore, a statement of opinion, not a statement of fact, and reliably sourced or otherwise, it must be attributed, per NPOV.

What am I missing here? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I don’t know if you remember the whole affair about the reliability of an English/Italian journalist regarding the article “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth”

I was citing Paolo Attivissimo, an English/Italian journalist, as a source for investigations on this group, and there was a dispute on the reliability of said journalist.

You were asking for some source which could be compared to the Skeptical Inquirer, so here’s what I have:

He publishes articles on “Le Scienze”, which is the Italian edition of Scientific American.: http://lescienze.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/maggio_2011,_n.513/1347688

Again, the Italian Police cites him as a reliable source regarding hoax debunking:

http://www.poliziadistato.it/poliziamoderna/articolo.php?cod_art=2168

He cooperates with NASA http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/PaoloAttivissimo.html

(side note, he’s here with astronaut Walter Cunningham, since he’s also a translator: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lrosa/5627235560/ )

He is interviewed on RAI (Italian Public TV ) regarding hoaxes:

http://www.rai.tv/dl/replaytv/replaytv.html#day=2011-05-08&ch=1&v=63091&vd=2011-05-08&vc=1

And on Mediaset (Italy’s main private TV, Berlusconi’s one to be clear): http://www.video.mediaset.it/video/matrix/full/224853/notizie-e-bufale.html#tf-s1-c1-o1-p1

He has his own program on Swiss national radio: http://www.rsi.ch/home/networks/retetre/disinformatico (The Italian speaking part of Switzerland, where he lives)

He writes for the Italian edition of Wired: http://www.wired.it/search?a=Paolo%20Attivissimo

He wrote for The Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/23/italy_blog_law_outrage/

So let me know if that is sufficient to consider him a reliable source, and his blog, being the blog of a journalist and expert, can be cited as a source. Thank you, and good travelling.Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 16:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur. I recently asked Viritidas, Alex Harvey, and Pete Tillman to consider taking a fortnight off the CRU email controversy article, as tensions might have built up a bit too much recently. SBHB has also agreed to take two weeks off the article; I was wondering if you might do the same. Regards, NW (Talk) 02:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your latest tagging of "Nine independent committees investigated the allegations and published reports detailing their findings", I am once again at a complete loss trying to understand why you say this statement "failed verification" and is "disputed". As both an administrator and a mathematician, I assume you are familiar with WP:CALC. The source describes eight separate inquiries and the source itself is the ninth probe, this one by the Commerce Department Inspector General, which is covered in spades by secondary news sources.[15] How does 8 + 1 = 9 fail verification or represent a dispute? Is there a good reason you added these maintenance tags? Please remove them. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The source names 5 "separate" inquiries, unless you want to include the Senate committee report which did find wrongdoing, albeit clearly wrongly. I don't see how you can possibly get 8. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears I was wrong. It does mention 8 inquiries, but doesn't say that they found no evidence of fraud. The report only says the inquiries didn't find anything wrong that that committee was asked to investigate. Hence, we can say there were 9 inquiries looking into particular aspects of the dispute. We cannot say that none of the 8 found evidence of scientific misconduct or fraud. We can only say none of the 6 published reports found evidence of scientific misconduct or fraud. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether the investigations found evidence of fraud has nothing to do with the number of reports or your tagging. Did any one of the nine investigations find evidence of scientific malfeasance? This is not the first time you have appealed to evidence that doesn't exist, and I'm getting tired of it. Why do you keep doing this? If you believe that the reports found this evidence, then you need to produce the source saying it. All the secondary sources are clear on this subject. What boggles the mind is that you would waste your time and mine posting this. You know that the reports did not find evidence of scientific malfeasance. So then, why did you even write this? After dealing with this kind of response from you for the last few weeks, I'm getting the impression that you are trying to waste my time. Either that, or you don't understand what you are saying. Is there a third option? Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Absurd. That none of the published reports of investigations found evidence of fraud doesn't mean that undocumented investigations didn't. You can't include the count and add the misleading statement that none of the investigations found evidence of scientific malfeasance. One of the investigations found evidence of admission of malfeasance, namely deleting emails to avoid a later FOIA request. It's just not scientific malfeasance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What "undocumented investgation" found evidence of malfeasance? Can you please stop referring to specific reports without using the names of their reports? This gives the appearance that you are playing rhetorical games and are tendentiously arguing for the sake of arguing. When you refer to specific evidence, always refer to it by name. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, the undocumented inquiry did not publish' a "detailed report"; we have no idea whether it produced a detailed report. If you want to include the 9, you would have to say that "some produced a detailed report", and that none of the published reports found evidence of scientific misconduct or fraud. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No, Arthur. Your trivial objections have no bearing on the meaning or the wording used. These are detailed reports that were produced and published in the normal, general use of the term. Your continued objections to basic words that an average reader would understand are simply objecting for the sake of objecting, which I find disruptive. Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

How can an undocumented investigation have a published report? No, you are either synthesizing or creating "information" out of the reports. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, what undocumented investigation that lacks a report are you referring to here? Please name it. Viriditas (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to do that. If you mention 9 investigations, and state that no investigations found evidence of malfeasance, you need to demonstrate that each of the 9 investigations did not find evidence of malfeasance. All we really know is that the original 6 investigations did not report finding evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. In investigation where the report isn't published, we shouldn't comment on what they found, unless they publish a summary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason you are still mentioning an unnamed investigation when I have asked you to please name the investigation you are referring to here? What is the name of the investigation "where the report isn't published"? Arthur, do you realize that you are not communicating effectively? If we are agreed that there were nine investigations, then that resolves the problem of your tagging. Notice, you have now moved the goalposts and changed the topic, and that is fine, but you need to work on addressing one problem at a time. You sound like you agree that there were 9 investigations, correct? Viriditas (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2m011 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't move the goal-posts. You moved the ball out of bounds when you said there were 9 investigations. Once you specify that, any rational person would assume that, when we go on to say that "no investigation found evidence of fraud", that it refers to all 9 investigations. Your source, the NOAA investigation, found an undocumented prior NOAA investigation. We don't know what it found; only that your source reported that it didn't find anything of interest to your source's investigation. If you mention the 9 investigations, you need to have evidence that none of the investigations found "fraud" or "scientific misconduct" (or whatever you want to say in the lede). We don't know that.

Just leave it as 6 in the lede, or don't count them at all. If you do that, the rest of that section of the lede is more-or-less correct, although I still see NPOV problems. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no need for a false dilemma, Arthur. Do you or do you not agree that there were nine investigations? Yes or no, please. I would like to address one topic at a time, Arthur. Once you've answered that question, we can move on to your other points. Please do not continue to ignore previous points and change the topic. The way to proceed is to address each point and work towards resolution. Otherwise, you give the appearance of trying to create a dispute where none exists. Viriditas (talk) 06:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree there were 9 investigations (although it's a little bit of synthesis; your report only mentions 7, and we have another one not mentioned there). However, there are at least two of which we know nothing about the results. Hence, the "detailed reports" and "found no evidence of ..." need to refer to those specific reports about which we know the reports.

It would be preferable if you worked on the body of the article, either as a draft (if you agreed not to edit the article for a while) or in the article itself, rather than adding new material in the lede not appearing in the body. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The report lists eight inquiries and the report itself represents the ninth. Why do you say the report only mentions 7? Which two do we not have results about? Please stick to discussing this subject and avoid adding additional tangential discussions until we resolve the first one. I believe I have already made this request. It is very frustrating having to discuss this with you, because you always launch into 10 different topics before finishing discussing one. So, we agree that there were nine investigations? However, you say the report only mentions seven. I see eight plus one. Why are we not on the same page? Viriditas (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I do only see 7 other investigations mentioned. Perhaps you could specify, in detail? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Yopienso, last thread on the page. Then, please explain your reasoning here. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You have used the wrong warning on my talk page, clearly. 88.109.29.126 (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Not if you're the same person who previously edited as 88.109.19.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

see Reinhart and Rogoff (2008), Reinhart and Sbrancia (2011) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghileman (talk • contribs) 14:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it can be a "tax" in the same sense that inflation is a "tax". However, I probably shouldn't have reverted, just tagged the section as unsourced and irrelevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This article lists the inflation tax, so it seems appropriate to also list the related financial repression tax. For a discussion of why financial repression constitutes a form of taxation please page 143 of Reinhart's and Rogoff's (2008) This Time is Different. Ghileman (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I checked your citation, which apparently is to the e-book. Page 143 thereof does not support your contention, and in fact may rebut it. It states, "Under financial repression, banks are vehicles that allow governments to squeeze indirect tax revenue from citizens by monopolizing the entire savings and payment system, not simply currency. Governments force local residents to save in banks by giving them few, if any, other options." The discussion is in the section "A Preamble on the Theory of Banking Crises" with a subheading "Banking Crises in Repressed Financial Systems", hardly a discussion of tax. The e-book uses the word tax infrequently and colloquially. Suggest you revise your positions, and certainly your citations. Oldtaxguy (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I've never got excited about the whole "barnstar" concept, but I just want to acknowledge your good work defending List of numbers amidst the recent editing chaos. Jowa fan (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

hi, I disagree with you removing my original photos from several pages. I think that they nit nay comply with the terms of use, but they provide an accurate view of the subjects. Thanks --The Educated 10:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brow276 (talk • contribs)

Most of them are unnecessarialy pornographic or inappropriate to the article. I left one of the six, as appropriate and, although pornographic, the only relevant photo. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI Arthur: One of those pictures is clearly a copyvio, the others most likly, too. So ignore that "user". --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur,

Since you are an admin, I thought I would ask if you could protect a BLP from persistent vandalism. It is the Rick Santorum BLP, which is understandably under attack since he is a Republican presidential candidate. An outspoken political activist, Dan Savage mounted a campaign a while ago to coin a new crude definition for 'santorum.' IPs have persistently been trying to put that crude definition into the article through various means. I don't have a problem with established users arguing that the content should be in the article, but I do with the drive-by IPs. Thanks for your consideration. Drrll (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. I'll keep an eye on it, but I don't think it warrants protection. Yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Any clue why the IP came to my page to whine about you? I've never edited that article before, at least, I don't think so, since it's not on my watchlist. Don't think I've run across the IP either. Should I kick your ass or something? Warn you? Do a dance? Bring you a cup of coffee? I'll challenge you to duel, how about that? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see. I put one of those Welcome Templates on his page. Teaches me a lesson about being nice. This is what happens. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It may have been the Welcome Template, but he's also spammed talk pages of editors I've been in disagreement with, or who have agreed with the user (under a different IP) on a different topic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What's up with the reverts?   Will Beback  talk  08:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The individual reverts have individual reasons, almost given previously, but most include WP:OVERLINK, the removal of easter eggs, or the anon's attempt to link inappropriate wikilinks. Any specific one you have in mind? You'll probably note I didn't revert all of their edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

[16][17][18] There are definitely some odd edits in there, but reverts without comments should only be done in cases of clear vandalism. Over-linking isn't vandalism, by any stretch, nor is writing non-harassing notes to other editors. I understand that the anon and you have a history. Since he hops IPs there may not be much we can do about it, and since he has no stable talk page it's almost impossible to have a sensible discussion. Nonetheless, he's not a vandal.   Will Beback  talk  08:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Should have been per WP:CANVASS. I commented later on the talk page.
2. Per easter egg. I see only said that once in an edit comment, but no one has yet brought it up on the talk page. I believe it's been discussed with the anon on another talk page, but since the anon makes so many bad edits, I can't locate it.
3. Per easter egg. I did discuss it on the talk page before the latest set of reverts.

and isn't repeated violation of WP:BRD considered revertable, even if not vandalism? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

BRD is an essay. Violating it is not a violation of any policy or guideline and it is not vandalism. The idea that it's OK to revert a failure to BRD makes no logical sense anyway. Easter eggs are not vandalism either (unless they're obviously crude or something). Canvassing is not vandalism. The rollback button is only for vandalism.

I understand the frustration with this editor. The only long term solution to disruption by someone who floats among IPs is to document the problem and to request a ban if it meets the threshold. That doesn't mean the editors can be blocked any easier, but it does make the issues clearer. However until that time this editor is free to edit and his edits, however unwise, must not be treated as vandalism unless they meet the standards found at WP:VANDAL.   Will Beback  talk  09:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Will. You're an admin and you perfectly knew that reverting someone's comment (be it an IP or registered) is against talk page guidelines because none of those comments are close to vandalism. They might appear to be WP:CANVASS, but the wordings are neutral and open. Reverting such messages aren't permitted by the talk page guidelines. Furthermore, your reverts violated WP:INVOLVED and that is a policy. You lost an argument at Talk:Sustainability so you should drop your stick and not going after talk pages of people who did not agree with your views. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

[19]?   Will Beback  talk  06:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it's innocuous, but it appeared, at first, to change the formatting of your comments to combine them, a clear violation of WP:TALK, unless the IP is you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The real problem, which can't be readily reverted, is his practice of using the edit summaries to communicate whatever it is that he's trying to say.[20] I don't know what to do about him. He's not violating any particular policies or guidelines, but he's getting annoying even though I do think he's trying to help.   Will Beback  talk  06:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I just got a complaint from the anon about another of your reverts.[21] You might consider just ignoring him.   Will Beback  talk  05:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Then he showed me this edit.[22] It really does seem like you are following him and reverting innocuous edits. I really think you need to just ignore him and let others act if he is actually breaking WP rules. Don't let yourself be brought down by inappropriate responses to a minor account.   Will Beback  talk  05:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed your revert, followed by a revert of the revert. It is fine by me to undo my edits if you disagree. I am fairly used to it lately :), I won't take it personally. Thenub314 (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If I had intended to revert your edit, I would have given a reason. I was reverting more nonsense edits by the IP-hopping 99.* semi-vandal on global warming. (I believe the IP has good intentions, but has no ability to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I give reasons for the first time I revert it, but not for successive nonsense edits.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Arthur Rubin , based on your assertion :" Concur that they appear not to be used by anyone other than Boubaker...." Please check here [23] and just say if it is OK or not. Thanks --Techala (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Arthur Rubin,

I saw that your removed my section abouta blog about the ICD. I am aware that the section strictly speaking was not in line with Wikipedia policies so I won't argue that it should be undone. However I put it there because the article itself, which was started by someone at the ICD, is full of references to their own website, and because most of what is out there about the ICD likewise seems to refer back to themselves. The truth is, I only ever heard of them because of receiving some very efficient spam which targets university addresses and which is quite difficult to block. Googling them, it seems that spamming is in fact a very deliberate strategy that involves over 70 interns, and I'd like to unveil that. In any case, I get your point.

In a different vein, I think that the references section of that article could be improved, as it is not clear from the references exactly what they refer to: to their website, or to other sources. I'd like to change that, but since I did not start the article I want to be sure that I am not messing up someone else's work that has already been approved. Do you have any suggestions of what I might do? Best SkaraB 13:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you are a member of WikiProject Mathematics and you are the first one who commented on this deletion, could you please comment here, thank you.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  18:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, do you mind explaining to me in simple English how the world's wealth was able to increase so much over the past two centuries. Also, will the enormous wealth of today be maintained? Pass a Method talk 23:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wealth per capita has increased primarily due to two effects:

• Increased population allows greater specialization, that is, more division of labor leading to more efficiency.
• Accumulation of technology, that is, knowledge of how to do things, and do them efficiently.

This should continue unless something interferes with these processes. Right? JRSpriggs (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Arthur Rubin , based on your assertion :" Concur that they appear not to be used by anyone other than Boubaker...." Please check here [24] and just say if it is OK or not. Thanks --Techala (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, you once again performed a tag team revert on Climatic Research Unit email controversy without acknowledging or responding to discussion on the talk page. Your edit summary, consisting of concur with Tillman. The quote is excessive; if you feel it's relevant, please summarize does not even touch upon the points raised in that discussion. Furthermore, how can you summarize a quote? Your edit summary (and rationale for reverting) is nonsensical. Please consider this the last warning and do not do this again. Use the talk page to discuss your edits, not the edit summary. So far, you have not responded to that discussion at all. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If there is a "tag team", you are the principle member. You still have not supplied material in the article (either references in the lede, or text in the article) for your rewrite of the lede. You may have supplied references on the talk page, but you have supplied so many clearly inappropriate references, that it's hard to tell. This quote might be justified, but in the wrong section of the article. I've commented now on the talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I will continue the discussion on the talk page, however, I have already demonstrated that it is in the correct place. Viriditas (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, please take a moment out of your busy day to count the number of reverts you've made to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy since January 1, 2011 and then compare it with the number I've made. I count somewhere on the order of 17 reverts from you. On the other hand, I've made a little over 10. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You have made far more reverts than you're counting. On the other hand, I'm probably making more reverts than you're counting, so we may be about even. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur - I just added a post to the existing AN/I thread that Viriditas started providing some diffs and asking for people to comment on his behavior. I figured I would let you know, since you also seem to have had some problematic contact with him. I know it would normally be more fitting as a WQA post but WQA asks you not to post if there's a thread elsewhere already dealing with the same issues. I'm not very familiar with the dispute resolution processes in general, but am hoping that getting a few additional outside editors commenting will yield productive resolution. Since you have had prior contact with him, I'd appreciate it if you could chime in with your thoughts on the ANI thread. Kevin (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: User_talk:Tillman#June_2011: Arthur, as an administrator, you should know better than to restore the name of an editor to a talk page heading after that editor has objected to its placement per WP:TALKNEW and WP:NPA. If you aren't willing to uphold Wikipedia policies and guidelines in your role as an administrator, you may want to contact a steward. I can understand that you must feel tired and stressed from the demands and responsibilities, but your recent actions and comments have me concerned. In addition to restoring personal attacks, it troubles me to see you admit that you can't write from a NPOV.[25] Please make an effort to incorporate the policies and guidelines into your role as an administrator and uphold them, even if you don't believe them. Viriditas (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, on both counts:

1. It's your edit; removing your name in the title makes it ambiguous, although it may be possible to fix it by describing the "problematic" edit in more detail in the title. Hence, your edit damaged the talk page, even if some change were required by the policy.
2. It's not addressed to you, it's about your edit to the article. Tillman's request (earlier on the page) for another specific editor to reply to one of his questions is a violation of that provision, or possibly even asking anyone but you to reply might be violation.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not wrong at all, Arthur, it is both policy and guideline; policy in the sense that personal attacks are condemned and editors should always focus on content not the contributor when discussing how to improve an article, and guideline which recommends avoiding using the names of other editors in talk page discussions about content. Finally, when an editor, any editor, asks you to stop addressing them in the header of an article talk page, you stop. What you don't do as an admin, is restore the attacks. It sounds to me like you no longer want to be an admin, in which case, you should ask a steward to relieve you of the burden. Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You're using a definition of "address" which I'm not familiar with. In fact, few of your sentences have accuracy in them.

1. There is neither policy nor guideline which states that the name of an editor should not be used in a section heading when necessary to describe the edit in question.
2. You are using the term "address" in a way inconsistent with normal English language usage.
3. What you removed was not an "attack", and it's removal changed the meaning of Pete's first statement. Pete's later statement that you are engaged in WP:TE might be considered an attack, if it hadn't been backed up by links earlier in the talk page. It's not irrelevant to discussion of article improvement, as it relates to (your) other edits to that article. It's not true that the value of edits to an article should be treated independently of other edits to the same article.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

1. The TALKNEW guideline states that the name of an editor should not be used in a section heading. It is never necessary to address an editor in a heading when describing an edit. This statement is clear: "Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed. Headings may be about a user's edits but not specifically to a user." When we say that headings may be about a user's edits, we are restating NPA: "Comment on the content, not on the contributor."
2. The definition of "address" is the one used by Wikipedia in WP:TALKNEW. In this context, it is defined as "greet, as with a prescribed form, title, or name; speak to". This is consistent with normal English language usage.
3. The removal of my user name from the header did not change the meaning of the discussion, and we don't use article talk pages to discuss other editors.

Let me know if you need any further help. Viriditas (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Wrong. The definition stated does not cover the use of your name, and the last sentence does not resemble WP:NPA.
2. Your definition, and the corresponding one in wikt:address (verb, 8), does not cover the usage made, which is referring to you, not asking you to respond or addressing the comments to you.
3. That's a matter of opinion. However, it's common courtesy, to list (or anchor) the previous section name, even if inappropriate, so that editor can understand the context.

Thinking about it, the section head might be a violation of the fourth subpoint, "Never use headings to attack other users", but it may also fall under the exception. The title seemed a neutral description of your edit. If it were to say "V's latest absurd addition", that would be an attack, but "V's latest inappropriate addition" would not be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You originally unlinked neo-isolationist with a comment that "Mead's definition is clearly different than ours. The alterative is note that Mead is clearly wrong." Only after the link was restored by Will Beback did you add the {{disputed}} template, specifically to the linked word. Under the principle that neo- is not without meaning, and noting that the isolationism article has no discussion of either neo-isolationism or the United States, I then repointed the link to the neo-isolationist section of the grand strategy article. This section has a definition which seems to correspond exactly to the description of Paul's position, without any mention of abandoning or curtailing international trade. Since this seemed to remove the original reason for adding the tag at that location, I'm hard pressed to find a reason "the tag shouldn't have been removed". Fat&Happy (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Mead is wrong, even by that definition, as "... in order to maintain its national security" is not part of Ron Paul's statements or any identifiable part of the TPm philosophy. I still think we're synthesizing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

In any case, linking provides an editorial voice that that's what the word means, and Mead is either wrong or doesn't agree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur,

I'm currently involved in what is unfortunately looking more and more like an edit war with an IP editor on the Shinji Ikari article. The problem is over the inclusion of Category, specifically Category:Fictional bisexuals. Before I removed the Category, I did some research and looked at both when it was added and if it had been discussed on the talk page. From what I can see, there was no consensus to add the Category and that there are no sources provided to back it up. Since this is quickly descending into edit warring(Or may already have), I wanted some advice as to what to do next. Normally I would try to talk to the user, but since it's an IP that doesn't have any history beyond these edits and is trying to use livejournal and youtube as reliable sources, I don't know how to try to talk to them. Should I request mediation? The article is quite small and I don't see a lot of edit activity. If you could give me some advice as to not make this worse, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. --Tarage (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Mediation doesn't seem helpful with unstable IPs. If it's a stable IP, which it seems to be, mediation or even WP:3O might work. However, you probably shouldn't ask me. I've been involved in too many articles where consensus was never attained. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I see you have had your hands full with IP jumper 99. This person has used no fewer than a dozen different IP's that I have noticed. Arzel (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur,

Why should you be looking for work? I know plenty of pharmaceutical companies that would pay you for the work you are doing on the Burzynski page of Wikipedia.

Have you seen the Burzynski movie? Are you able to watch it? it's currently free to watch on www.burzynskimovie.com until the 20th June.

It's hard not knowing all the rules around editing but i am currently studying them to be able to update the page with informative, factual evidence and i would like to work with you in this. If you are itching to remove/undo a future edit on the Burzynski page, please think twice, and ensure you are editing according to the rules. I can see below you have reactively edited and then agreed that another, less severe course of action was probably more warranted.

People that are dying and have been given a short amount of time to live, are trying to get information on this subject. All i am asking is that you follow the principles of Wikipedia in your future edits on the Burzynski page.

One day someone you love, or perhaps even yourself, will get cancer. I'm sure you will think about this differently then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.88.183.109 (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If you can provide sources which are not "B" himself, or quoting "B", that material should probably go in the article. You haven't. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

For what reason are you disrupting the Transcendent Man film article with blanket reverts, removal of an image, and deletion of a list of people who appear in the film? So far, your edit summaries do not support your edits. Please make use of the article talk page to explain your edits. Viriditas (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a blanket revert. In general, a "list of people who appear in the film" should not be in the article about the film. And I did question why they appear, on the article talk page. I'll check to see whether you have a credible justification. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, a list of people who appear in a film is called a "cast" and the list you removed is supported by the external link to the imdb which lists the section you removed as a cast. Film articles on Wikipedia use cast sections. If this isn't making sense to you, let me know. Viriditas (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello there, just thought I'd inform you that you've blocked this IP user, but not put a template on his page informing him of it and what he can do to appeal it. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 19:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. And it appears my block reason was wrong, also. I'll repair the damage. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Arthur Rubin, HELP! As a result of a recent edit by another editor to a page I watch, links to the Code of Federal Regulations were changed to the form 26 CFR xx using AWB. This {{}} tool does not link to current regs. The GPO has instituted an e-cfr system which has text of CFR updated daily for changes that become effective the previous day. The WP automated link is to OLD (like over a year old) regs. I'm not sure how the tool links or how to fix it, but it needs fixing if it is to continue to be used. Thanks for your help. Oldtaxguy (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Please describe what the correct URL looks like, and I'll see what I can do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. My talkpage is getting swarmed by IP voices of recognition and complaints for editing an article on environmental migrants. This is to let you know that at least one such user has complained about your removal of repetitive usertalk messages about editing sustanability articles. Although you might not take their concerns seriously or perhaps consider them to be trolling, I tend to consider concerns of any Wikipedia editor seriously regardless of their POV or involvement in editing disputes. Also, I am not asking that you remove any comments from my talkpage, as I still consider them legitimate issues. If you wish, you may respond here rather than on my talkpage, and we could start to resolve the dispute between your editing style and the concerns of certain IP editors. Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 01:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The March 30 issue was in regard a clear violation of WP:CANVASS; after discussion with a few editors I decided not to revert such violations in the future. I don't recall what the May 19 issue was, I may have hit the wrong key, and the IP restored it within a minute or two, so I may not have had time to self-revert. The comment you received (sent to approximately 7 editors by 2 IPs, that I know of), is also a clear violation of WP:CANVASS, although probably not WP:NPA.

The IP editor is now up to about 20% (at least marginally) constructive edits, 40% violation of WP:OVERLINK (or WP:EGG, or both), 20% incomprehensible talk page requests (usually with a subject line longer than 255 characters, containing URLs, and requesting addition of a reference, without specifying why it is relevant or what it is intended to support), 10% comprehensible requests, 5% style violations without specific reasons, and 5% attempts to link to their pet project. The current pet project is [[planetary boundaries]], but others have been 350.org and sustainability. Of the 20% marginally constructive edits, over half required patching to properly link what they intended to link.

For what it's worth, I also removed at least one talk page comment which was both incomprehensible and had unclosed tags. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

As for the non-constructive edits, sometimes I miss giving a reason for my revert the first time, but I give a reason the next few times, and then give up on giving reasons after the IP continues making the same edit without giving a reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The IP jumper has violated a 1RR here. Not sure how to handle this persons editing on articles like this. However, you seem to have some experience dealing with them as well. Arzel (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Not successfully, I'm afraid. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be getting quite bad. This appears to be one editor, or maybe a couple of editors working closely together adding a ton of POV edits to a great number of articles. And since they are jumping around so much it is all but impossible to stop, and their doesn't seem to be much interest in stopping this particular POV pushing. Arzel (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Four different editors have of late removed the conspiracy links from this template. I strongly encourage you to cease adding these links to this template. If you are not satisfied, you well know WP:DR. Please follow it. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks as if there is a, well, "conspiracy" to unlink the conspiracy articles from the (relatively) sane articles, and then delete them as a WP:Walled garden. Tom Harrison disagrees, but I don't see any reason to doubt it. That would be a violation of Wikipedia principles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Personally, I have no stick in the fire. I don't care. I happened across the template from seeing an edit MONGO made elsewhere. Now, it's four editors removing the links and only you adding them back in. That's an edit war. Any suppositions on the intent behind anyone's edits is beyond my interest level. But, before making that case I would urge you find actual evidence. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, only one editor (MONGO) replied at the talk page, giving a justification for the removal, and two editors (Moxy and I) have agreed that there is no current consensus or justification for the removal, so that status quo ante should remain. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is linked to in List of conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Is that subject to systematic removal, as well? In any case, it's still a matter of which the 9/11 WikiProject should have been informed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no such matter at hand. WP:9/11 has only nine members, with one inactive, leaving eight. MONGO is one of the most active members and represents the project. Viriditas (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur...in April I awarded you a Defender of Wiki barnstar for your 9/11 article related work, and I stand by that decision. We may not always agree, but I hold you in high esteem nevertheless. Best wishes to you.--MONGO 03:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Although I believe it harmful to Wikipedia, I see a clear supermajority (which is not the same as consensus) for the CT links not to be in the template, although no reason has been given for removal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well you really surprise me. You have placed a POV tag on this article and announced at DYK that you dispute its accuracy. That would have been fine if you had said what your dispute is, and why you consider the article is POV. But you do not appear to have done that anywhere. Have you got some reasonable argument? If not, then what is going on with you? Admins should not behave like this. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The lede sentence is synthesis ("Planetary boundaries is an earth system framework...", and I still doubt the notability of the individual "boundaries", as opposed to other (potential) boundaries and/or values of the boundaries. If you would write an article about the framework (not presently described in the article), rather than about the individual boundaries, it could be a worthy article. I'm not sure that "accuracy" applies to an article about a theory, only weight. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no synthesis here. The reliable sources[26][27] are based on this summary which describes planetary boundaries as an Earth system framework. Viriditas (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I was wrong. It just shouldn't be linked, as there is no claim that it's "science". It does say "earth system".... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Then why didn't you just unlink it? I realize you have had a long and frustrating history with waring IPs who were trying to write this article. There is nothing personal, Arthur, in me retrieving the article. It was not aimed at you, I just thought it was notable and should be written properly. I see you revert vandalism on Wikipedia, rather than writing articles. But I am not one of your vandals, and I object to you treating me like one. You really should be able to discriminate between vandals and content editors. You state you have an objection about the framework versus the individual boundaries and make a dark comment about "weight". That is opaque and explains nothing. Can you please explain what you are talking about? There is already quite a bit in the article, which I'm only halfway through, about the framework. And why are you attempting to torpedo the article at DYK by publicly damning it as inaccurate? Please strike that comment, or set out a credible defence of your position on the article talk page (which you should have done at the outset). --Epipelagic (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with J. Johnston; this article should not exist under this name. If the general concept of "planetary boundaries" could be sourced, that would deserve an article. You still have not provided evidence of notability. An article which shouldn't exist shouldn't be tagged for DYK. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Evidence of notability is found in the sources. On what basis do you question the existence and notability of the article? Viriditas (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There is some evidence of notability of the initial article (which should be titled Planetary Boundaries). The subject would be worthy of note, if there was a source. All sources refer to the article, rather than to the concept. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the article is appropriately titled "planetary boundaries". You are confusing the house style of one publication with the appropriate title on Wikipedia. Please actually read the sources rather than making strange comments and edit warring over tags. Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that's a different issue. The notable subject is the article "Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity"] Ecology and Society, 14(2): 32, not the general subject. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken. The title is correct per guidelines and the subject is notable. If you claim otherwise, please provide policy and guideline based arguments. Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If the subject were as you say it is, the article would be named planetary boundary. It isn't. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It would good if you can explain your position, if you have one, with some clarity. Are you now arguing over notability or over the title of the article? You have agreed that the article wasn't inaccurate as you claimed. Then above you seem to be saying it is now notable as well. Then bless you... you move your uprooted posts and drive them in again, claiming the real problem is that the article is wrongly titled, and should be called "Planetary Boundaries" (again without any reasoning). Then in your next comment, are you saying it should be titled "Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity" instead? Please present your reasoning on the talk page of the article, where it belongs. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Please self-revert, otherwise I will report you. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No, actually, I haven't, even if you consider my addition of the {{notability}} tag as a revert. The addition of {{POV}} was not, and the first removal of the Earth system science link was not. You've reverted three times, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You reverted three times as well. Is there a particular reason that you are edit warring over maintenance tags and links instead of contributing to a discussion about it? Viriditas (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I've now self-reverted 2 edits, leaving my count as 2. By the way, you are not welcome on my user talk page. Please discuss your concerns on the relevant article talk page. (This is the first time I've requested this of anyone. I hope you're happy.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Rubin, however awkwardly IPs state their case, it is you who comes across as the POV warrior. It is time you came clean and explained where the obsessive flurry of obstructive edits you make on planetary boundaries comes from. There is nothing I can find in the literature to support your position, apart from some throwaway comments made by Stuart Pimm when the concept was first floated. And I note that Pimm does not appear to have repeated or expanded his objections, and it may be that it is Pimm who has the egg on his face. Are you coming from a religious fundamentalist position? Or is it just that you genuinely believe, that even if God if not looking after all of this for you, then everything is going to be fine anyway, because that is what you want, and that the concept of habitable boundaries must therefore be nonsense? If these comments misrepresent your position, then it is long overdue for you to explain and justify just what your position really is. Can you do that? If not, then soon I'm going to start reverting your more eccentric and dysfunctional edits. You are bringing administrators into disrepute behaving this way. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what you're talking about. (1) The concept of a "planetary boundary" (or perhaps planetary boundary framework) may be notable and scientific, but no support or definition has yet been provided in the article. (The general concept of a "Tipping point" might help, but I'm not up to writing that article.) (2) The paper "Planetary Boundaries" appears to be notable, but not scientific (as they note). (3) I have severe doubts as to whether the specific 9 (or 11, depending on how you count them) boundaries are notable, except in the context of the paper. The article "planetary boundaries", at present, has the lead for the first concept and an article on the second (and the third, as appropriate), and the IP is attempting to construct links to the third.

This has nothing to do with whether I believe the paper is accurate (as far as it goes), or the concept is relevant. The original TTAPS paper was notable and relevant, but not scientific. (In fact, it probably qualifies as pseudoscientific.) Until real scientific papers were produced, an article on the paper would be appropriate, but an article on nuclear winter probably would not have been. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking pretty hard for sources. The book's been cited many times but not discussed. It might meet "how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media" from WP:BK#Academic and technical books. Anyway, you were talking about possibly nominating the prior content so I thought I'd drop you a note.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'm willing to let the notability question wait, although I would probably !vote "delete" if it came to AfD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 17th century BC. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Quit removing factual information regarding Pfizer. I will sit here and revert your changes forever.

I've explained why it shouldn't be added. Pejorative information with no source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I will provide a source then...if you remove it after that we know your position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justiceforall911 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's not a reliable source, it still goes. And the comment above isn't supported by the material below, even if it were sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you consider Pfizer to be a reliable source? This is your final warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justiceforall911 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

What you wrote is not in material created by Pfizer; to give your comments the best possible light, it's your reinterpretation of that material. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You would do better to discuss it on the talk page. I'm not a fan of Pfizer, but we (Wikipedia policy) do not allow unsourced pejorative comments, even about a company. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The factual statement, "Premarin, a hormone replacement drug created from the urine of pregnant mares which a percentage of are eventually sent to slaughter houses" come from the GAO slaughter report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justiceforall911 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		For your extraordinary diligence on climate change articles, accompanied by an amazing ability to stay out of the mud. SPhilbrickT 13:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

(I really wanted a "takes a licking and keeps on ticking barnstar, but I couldn't find one)

I don't think I'm edit warring and I'm not trying to edit war. I only reverted one person's edit. The article seemed to be better as I wrote it.-Rememberway (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it's better, you have reverted to reinsert τ at least twice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No, when you tagged me I had only done one revert. -Rememberway (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I just did a second revert when you tagged me, I backed off on it to see if I had missed anything, but I've decided to go forward with it. I'm nowhere near 3 and I'm not planning to revert even if Fly by Night reverts me; (and he may well do, he seems to have generally lost the plot). -Rememberway (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Gandalf 61 reverted an anonymous editor, not me, I didn't even look at that edit, nor did I revert it.

FWIW you shouldn't take Fly by Night's edit reasons at face value, as he seems to have lost the plot a bit, for example he's currently claiming I'm an SPA(!) (But my contributions are not consistent with that.) -Rememberway (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Good point. You may not be the anon. My apologies if I doubt or doubted your word, but I work in sock-puppet-filled areas. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You have my condolences. FWIW, it's possible to confirm that that's not my IP, but I don't think it would have made any sense for me to log out for that edit anyway. The thing was it was 'tau day' and there was about two thousand potential editors sloshing around that day. -Rememberway (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Fly by Night (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You might want to look at [28] and the block history here [29], Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not socking, and I'm quite willing to have a check user done to prove it. Note that Wolfkeeper account is not under any restrictions at all either (but I scrambled the password so I can't get it back.) -Rememberway (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt very much that you are socking. Dougweller (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't going to bother you, but I wasn't sure whether you'd read the history, Fly by Night recently removed the whole thing, we had got a link to turn (geometry) obviously because there's tau radians to the turn, which is what makes it useful of course since a turn is an identity. Or link to Pi#Criticism? I'm 3RR at the moment on it due to wretched Quandle, but obviously do whatever you want. -Rememberway (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

p.s. An Erdos number of 1? Sweet. -Rememberway (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

p.p.s. poodle of doom could well be a sock puppet, feel free to check user, it's not me either! ;-) -Rememberway (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Why are you people deleting an image with the same use and raitonal as: File:AFC-1960-Uniform-NE.PNG [30]

The pictures all have the form filled out and are the same as other NFL articles which meet standards and are NOT being deleted.

If there is paperwork that is incorrect, then help get it to conform, but the rationale and fair use is 100% the same as [31].

If you have a problem, delete the Boston Patriots seasons and other teams as well. Right now what you are doing is very close to wiki-stalking abd you've not attempted to discuss this. You have not assumed good faith and are vengence-editing.RussFrancisTE81 (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, let me check. That one doesn't violate WP:NFCC#10c, but may still violate WP:NFCC#8. Δ is using an automated system which detects violations of 10c. I'd propose that one for deletion, as well, but it's not as obvious as yours. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have reported your actions to [32] I do not think you acted in good faith and are picking on me and wiki-stalked me without contacting me. It seemed likeyou were edit-warring with me and that is why I stopped. My usages are 100% the same as the ones I posted. All I want to to be treated fairly and not picked on or attacked and your actions are inexcusible. I admitted I don't know the rules to a "T" but I can see that scores of articles are using similar pictures and are not being attacked by youRussFrancisTE81 (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Greetings Arthur Runin. I left a comment for you about Geomagic squares at Talk:Magic square --Foobarnix (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Left another note for you at Talk:Magic square — Foobarnix (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

About Convention (norm) edit 06:39, 1 July 2011 87.19.76.143

Which are the few which you agree to and which are these you do not agree to?

Mormegil 87.18.197.73 (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Saying "regulatory legislation may be introduced to formalize or enforce the convention" refers to law enforcement, is not it?

Mormegil 87.20.73.254 (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. Enforcement of regulations is not necessarily law enforcement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A regulation could be "enforced" by exposing the perpetrator to some adverse change in his legal status, such as making him vulnerable to a lawsuit by the (alleged) victim(s) of his violation. In the Icelandic commonwealth, a person who refused to obey the commands of the courts was declared an outlaw meaning that anyone could kill, injure, or rob him without adverse consequences. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The same for Purpose (edit 05:47, 1 July 2011 87.19.76.143)

Mormegil 87.18.197.73 (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Clear. Mormegil 87.18.197.84 (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault&diff=438709556&oldid=438699733 ... (Revert inappropriate changes; don't unlink redlinks, as it may generate new article; don't add hyperlinks in body...they go in the External Links section; Portwave appears to be a personal website, so it isn't a valid source.) ... User:Huntster 99.181.151.89 (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur I deleted your proposal to delete "Dark side of planning." The term "Dark side of planning" is widely used in planning and planning research, see references. Your reason for deletion, i.e., "The term is rarely used in the real world," applies to an even higher degree to numerous other entries on wikipedia, for instance subjects in economics, math, etc. So if you were to be consistent all these other entries, many of which are well established, should also be proposed for deletion. Your reason for deletion also does not seem to appear on the official list of reasons for deletion. I therefore kindly ask you to not propose deletion. This entry is important to those of us who work in planning. I hope this is okay with you? Kind regards Gsaup — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsaup (talk • contribs) 11:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to remove the {{Prod}}, but I think you're wrong. Even the references you quote use "dark side of ..." (but not always "planning"), and not for the same concept. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. If the discussion concludes that the article should be deleted, I would like to suggest that the article is instead moved to the "Planning" article as a subheading in this. Gsaup — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsaup (talk • contribs) 18:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Please bring that up in the AfD discussion. As the nominator, I will not be involved in choosing the result when closed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

To Gsaup: If, in the event that the AfD is closed "delete", you want to merge some of the article's content into another article, then you would be well advised to preserve a copy of the article's source off-line now because once it is deleted you will not be able to get access to the source without the help of an administrator. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. What exactly do you mean by "more precise" in respect to Eulers identity? Perhaps an good thing to expound a little on that? Kleuske (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

${\displaystyle e^{\pi i}=-1\implies e^{2\pi i}=1}$, but not the reverse, for arbitrary values of π.) I'll clarify, when I get the chance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

please do, since the above is about as clear as condensed milk to me. Kleuske (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you've added to your user pages that you'll be attending law school soon and will be busy with less time for Wikipedia. Just wanted to say thanks for your history of reverts on touchy articles like New World Order (conspiracy theory) and Alex Jones (radio host), among other articles I happen to watch as well - your watchful eye is appreciated and hasn't gone unnoticed. Making sense of the nonsense can be tedious! Hopefully you'll be reasonably conscious on Wikipedia though. By the way, will you be seeking to concentrate in any particular field of law, be it civil, criminal, international, etc.? John Shandy` • talk 05:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm hoping to specialize in IP law or tax law. The school I'm going to doesn't have those as specific tracks, but does have a "business law" track, which seems to include courses in both. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Arthur Rubin, Thanks for the reminder. The correct URL for 26 CFR 1.61-2 looks like this:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div8&view=text&node=26:2.0.1.1.1.0.2.2&idno=26

The link to the table of contents for Title 26 looks like this:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title26/26tab_02.tpl

I have stripped off the session id that the GPO's system puts in. This website is updated daily for CFR changes (all titles), and is generally the most complete and accurate available. Thanks for the help! And your sage advice is always appreciated. Oldtaxguy (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

In case you get hungry during law classes, I've packed a plate of cookies for you, enjoy. SwisterTwister talk 07:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Exuse me. Where do you write about this? You explain, please [33]--Many baks (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think your knowledge of English is up to the task. I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine, but I haven't received a reply, yet, in English, Russian, or Ukrainian. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It's see. I already red your message. Why do you think that my knowledge not up to the task?--Many baks (talk) 09:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I replied at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine. I agree, the user has limited communication ability, but I don't see where he/she is in violation of policy. I'm not sure the articles can pass notability standards and I will cite the policy on his talk page. Do you have a message you'd like to communicate? I'll be happy to translate. USchick (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I write on my (discussion page. Whay am I limited communication ability?--Many baks talk]]) 18:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

To Many baks: Your English spelling and grammar are abominable. Virtually every sentence you write contains multiple errors. Even if those errors were corrected, your writing would still be hard to understand because you fail to provide adequate context. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Arthur Rubin, user Cherkash has edited Foreign tax credit using AWB to insert links to the Code of Federal Regulations using the Wikipedia function that links to the wrong place (out of date regs). I cannot undo the changes. That article now has links to regs that are obsolete. I have left the user two messages (one some time ago) about this problem, to no apparent effect. Can you undo the changes to Foreign tax credit? Thanks. Oldtaxguy (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur,

In case you're not still watching it, I commented briefly at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(linking)#Overlinking_of_magazines_or_publishers.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not on my tier 1 watchlist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur. I was curious about which article you were referring to in respect of the standard win score being 121. The wikipedia article on cribbage cites 121 or 61 and although I don't claim to be an expert on the game I thought the reference I posted ought to have been a good enough source (as in the expression "according to Hoyle"). This is my first contribution to a talk page, btw, so forgive any silly mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royal Blue Jersey (talk • contribs) 13:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to know your thoughts on the Natural Number 0 and why you reverted it. Wikipedia should be consistent, and in the conclusion of the natural numbers Wikipedia page, it references that 0 is NOT widely accepted as a Natural Number, so it should not be included in the list of natural numbers, which people may refer to and incorrectly use as a natural number even though it is not widely accepted. I figure I should Post this on your talk page so we don't keep reverting back and forth.

63.100.53.2 (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There is just one little problem — zero is a natural number as every logician knows. JRSpriggs (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you see this? --Born2cycle (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

the page Template:Infobox_Belgium_Municipality/Population puts automatic information of NIS in the part population Template:Infobox_Belgium_Municipality

example look to Aalst, Belgium, it's 2006, look the dutch one http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aalst_(Oost-Vlaanderen) and you have the 2010 information

so you can't change it you're self but the current information is quite old 2006!

there is a list of 2010 on http://economie.fgov.be/nl/binaries/Pop%20Bevolk%2001012010_v2_f_tcm325-109882.xls

is it please possible for someone to update this?

it's really ridiculous because on the dutch page everything is 2010 but when people of other countries update information they look mostly on the english page and copy that information so they put the 2006 information of the english page while correct information of 2010 is on the dutch page

so please can someone do something?

Klodde (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

See thank you on WP:TEA. (",) 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ummm... dude, WTF?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I had just taken my wife to emergency. Still, if I had remembered the template that blanked the enclosed section, I probably would have used it. The version there is too absurd to remain. However, it doesn't appear to violate any overriding Wikipedia policies, so I shouldn't have done that. I realize WP:WRONGVERSION applies, and I wasn't intending to restore a version I considered acceptable, just blanking it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to join in with the discusion. Robo37 (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Arthur,

Thank you for all your comments on the articles that i posted. It seems that the quality standards in the English section are much higher than in the Dutch section that i normally write for. In the future i will include references.

You proposed to delete the article about Peter Colfs. In this case i think you might be right. The Dutch article that i wrote some time ago in Dutch was based on the following link http://www.simonis-buunk.nl/collectie/details/Peter_Colfs_9164.aspx but maybe this is not a reliable source because as you mentioned Peter Colfs is not mentioned in the article about the Prix de Rome. Therefore i have listed it in the Portal:Arts/Things you can do to be verified and expanded. I also removed most of the statements in the article.

I don't agree with your deletion proposal for the Buddhist monastry Wene Karmae Chö Ling. I think this building is just as notable as all the other small monastries that are mentioned in Wikipedia (and have the Buddhism-monastery-stub-template). What makes it special is that it is one of the few buddhist monatries in the Netherlands and also one of the few in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weetjesman (talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can find an external source that there are only a few Buddhist monasteries in the Netherlands, that would provide evidence of notability, and I'd withdraw the claim. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Please re add the study because it is based on reliable sources not a conspiracy as you wrongly alleged, for further discussion visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_warming_conspiracy_theory#Removing_of_Greenpeace_Study Gise-354x (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It should replace the other Greenpeace study; the question of whether Greenpeace is a reliable source is still open, and the appropriate placement is with the other Greenpeace study. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi User:Arthur Rubin,

There seems to be a dispute going on with User:Loonymonkey, User:Tommyboy1215 and yours truly regarding how to handle the U.S. Chamber of Commerce controversy on the Lee Fang page. Would you mind having a look? Starbucksian (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for sorting out the Category:Global warming controversy formatting (on reflection it's obvious it disappears from main text {{{forehead slap}}}). Out of interest, what does the first colon "mean"? Is it useful anywhere else? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It's sort of an escape character. You can use it for [[:es:Article in Spanish language Wikipedia]], while [[es:Article in Spanish language Wikipedia]] creates an "Other languages" link. I think it also allows you to use a template which is identical to a "magic word", but I've never tried that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent - the interwiki link trick is potentially very useful. Many thanks.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It also allows you to link to an image without displaying it on the page where you link it. For example [[:File:Climate Change Attribution.png]] produces File:Climate Change Attribution.png rather than . JRSpriggs (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, JRSpriggs! I think I get the idea - the colon means just show the link, not do what you normally do. It's very useful.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur. To date there have been six people inviolved in discussions on this article. So at present its three against three. I therefore don't see how you can fairly argue for a consensus aginst the lead as it is.

Of the three of them who were involved in the discussion about inclusion of the word 'fringe' as a definition in the intro, two of them (John Shandy, Loremaster) have not contested nor expressed any difficulty with the new lead. So again how do you suppose it goes against consensus? In fact its even been edited and adjusted slightly.

One of these three has accepted the lead as it is ("I don't care at all about the lead paragraph right now - I'm only concerned that... " etc. John Shandy), so he has accepted it.

Two of them (John Shandy, Loremaster) have since suggested we other three go ahead and make whatever changes we think and when they have more time, they intend to discuss: "do what you will with it we can revisit the lead when there's something more concrete and updated for us to hack away at and poke and prod with..." etc. So my change is totally in accordance with what these two people have suggested we do so and is therefore TOTALLY in concord with those involved in the discussion and therefore can not be fairly undone on a claim of reverting to consensus view.

Its three against three without any of the above and both the main protaganists have accepted changes being made till they have more time.

Please do not now stop us moving forward by edit warring after this agreement with Loremaster and John Shandy. To do so mean we we get nowhere. And if you disagree please discuss first, then we can all see what the consensus is. It is very frustrating that after all our discussions you feel you can come in without discussing or contributing at all except to revert and undo.

I have also added this message to you to the conspiracy theory discussion page, so if you want to answer, please do so there.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You do realise that the version you just removed, is the same version that you reverted TO on 26 August, claiming it was the "stable version"??? Black Kite (t) (c) 14:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. I'll need to check, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I was confused myself :) You might be right that going back to Loremaster's version is a good idea though. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur,

Thanks for (hopefully) getting this anonymous un-hatter better educated about use of wiki talk pages thru a temporary block. Its possible they meant it in good faith, but hopefully they'll someday read WP:DISRUPT, where it says even good faith edits are disruptive if the editor doesn't know wiki guidelines and how to edit pages accordingly. Mucho gracias, NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

With respect to Talk:Climate change policy of the United States‎‎ please be mindful of WP:3RR. The edit warring presently happening is inconsequential in the bigger picture. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Would deleting the sections, rather than hatting them, be a "revert"? That actually would make more sense than the initial effort to hat them. For what it's worth, would you please block the current IP if he reinstates the edit. They're obviously all the same person, and he's reverted 3 times in the past 12 hours, under 3 different IPs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not an admin so I cannot do the blocking. But surely the collapsing option is not too much of an issue? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#What_is_a_limit_ordinal.3F, where discussion is currently taking place rather than assuming consensus without evidence. Currently most editors in the discussion favor language that is neutral to both definitions, as both definitions appear in multiple textbook sources (and respected Universities and departments which rely upon a single source, also differ between which of the two they use). TricksterWolf (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I'm telling you anything new, judging from this--50.42.182.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 99.190.84.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), that's the same editor. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ha, I only saw that edit, not the rest of it on the tea talk page. Silly, isn't it. Maybe we should send them wiki-kittens--they obviously have a need for rewards. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Except that 50. seemed to have an obscenity filter. I scanned through his edits and I think all the filter trips have been reversed, but another pair of eyes would be appreciated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Arhtur,

I found ur new editoring to the norm inequities between r norm and p norm. I think it will be better to put the conditions to hold the equality there, like did by the original version.

Thanks!

Shuai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.141.227 (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, since entrywise matrix norm is in parallel to vector norm after vectorization, it is very necessary to add the entrywise inequalities under different p norms.How about the section "Equivalence of norms"? I think that is a good place to plug it in. Thank you for your hardworking even on labor day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.141.227 (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of a reply to my question "Reference to cribbage in the '61 (number)' article" (now archived), I'll just put the page back the way it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royal Blue Jersey (talk • contribs) 11:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point of view regarding the non-interpretation of primary sources and the use of reliable secondary sources for this purpose. However, under WP:CALC, performing an average calculation doesn't constitute interpretation, which is why I'm trying to stick to the primary source in this instance. You seem experienced and unbiased and I'd appreciate your help in keeping this edit as accurate and sanitary as possible. I've been trying to keep the edit clean for a while now but others keep throwing dirt and nonsense on it. Your thoughts? Quophnix (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The arguments about how to do the calculation seem to make WP:CALC arguable. Still, if one divides the total grade points from the trascript (adjusted for the change from the 3 point to 4 point scale) by the total hours reported on the transcript, you might get a fair GPA. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That's precisely what we did, which is why it's so frustrating to have all the objections on the talk page. Check the math for yourself if you have the time. It amazes me how hard it is to keep such a straightforward approach on the books. Quophnix (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I get 2.18 (320/147). I don't think WP:CALC applies if we can get such different answers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Decoherence in the environment is monitored through the Wigner distribution function of the system, and its gradual loss of negative values with time. Zurek and collaborators, cf refs 6,5,4 in the article, are quite proud of their extensive work on the subject; I am not clear on what you expected to see. I believe the Wigner quasi-probability distribution function, which is the density matrix in the phase-space representation, is the tool to use in developing any usable intuition on quantum decoherence, if the non-Throop reader is to make any sense of the article at all, as it stands. Your call to reinstate the wikilink.Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding my edit (on the Tea Party movement) I was correcting that the source (already listed in the page as name="vogel1" ^[2] ) reads "...the poll also found that tea partiers are less educated, but more interested in politics." and the wiki page reads "...likely to be more wealthy and have more education" and sources that article. I did not add a source, I simply moved the source already present, as there is a clear error here, or rather a selective exclusion or bias towards certain parts of the source. Smzcl (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The first source listed, in the the version I restored, stated "...likely to be more wealth and have more education". I actually would have expected the reverse, but we have a source. If you want to realign the sources, noting questions about the reliability of politico, go ahead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been pondering whether to merge this with Timeline of the far future. I've been going over the remaining material and, bar the fictional references, which could be broken off into their own article, I'm not sure which listed events are truly noteworthy. Most of them aren't sourced and those that are are heavily slanted- are occultations of Regulus, as opposed to any other star, really that important? Anyway, don't mean to come off as a grumpy guts but I thought I'd let you know where I stood on this before doing anything. Serendi^podous 15:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts....

No real objection, on my part, except that {{millenniumbox}} would be inappropriate for an article named "Timeline...", and so we should have some hatnote pointing back to 10th millennium. I suspect Regulus is the brightest star near enough to the ecliptic that occultation is possible. Certainly, Alpha Centauri and Sirius are not anywhere near the ecliptic. "Pioneer 10 approaches star system" certainly doesn't belong in a timeline article, although one could make a case for the distant-time satellite "returns to Earth" years.

Perhaps more detail should be included up to the year 50,000 or 100,000, or this article should be renamed 11th milennium to 100th millennium, and the rest moved to "timeline"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I found some citations for some of the information on the page, so I'm in the process of moving the information over. But it will take some time. Serendi^podous 16:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit conflicted as to whether [34] constitutes a reliable source. Which is a shame because I think the info deserves to be included. Serendi^podous 08:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Arthur, I'm looking into the behavior of some IPs. I notice that 97.87.29.188 and you seem to have been in a scrap about Oct 2010 somehow related to their pet project, the plan.bound. article. Is that about when the IPs advocacy of that article really took off? What's the backstory? No rush, drop me a line inbetween cram sessions for the bar (no sense putting it off you know...) Best of luck in the new endeavor. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the full story; IIRC, I first ran across them when they were linking 350.org to all occurrences of the number "350", whether or not referring to 350 ppm CO₂. They also wanted to list all the "350 messengers" in the 350.org article, and link 350.org to all of them. Other campaigns included adding {{for|(the) current climate change|global warming}} to all articles loosely related to climate change, linking scientific opinion on climate change to every opinion (whether or not be a scientist) on global warming, and a few others still mentioned in User:Arthur Rubin#Global warming / climate change, even though they're not doing that any more. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and linking all people who appeared in Planet Earth: The Future in both that article and their own, all "associate editors" of Sojourners in both that article and their own, all people who appeared in Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story (even if they didn't act in it, and only appeared in archive footage) all articles loosely connected to one of the "boundaries" to Planetary boundaries (here, most of them were properly linked in that article).... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI, after policy proposal defeat, I floated a query in the [idea lab here] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

What's the problem of articles about socio-cognitivehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-cognitive ? You've written "still sourced only to Gadomski" it's not only of Gadomski articles.

First you look, after, where is something not related to socio-cognitive concepts, remove it.

Are you an expert in cognitive science? Don't think so. --CogSci11 (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Is Gadomski an expert in cognitive science? Don't think so, except insofar he has managed to redefine his theories to be "cognitive science". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

My question was: Are YOU an expert in cognitive science? And.... Do you work in a department of cognitive science? Have you written an scientifi journal article on cognitive science? Do you present poster/presentation on cognitive science conference?

If NO, you have no right to remove anything in socio-cognitive topic. --CogSci11 (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia everyone can edit". Expert opinions are welcomes, but the articles should reflect what is in reliable sources, which does not include your claims. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"encyklopedia everyone can edit" but the founder of Wikipedia have assumed that their editors are reasonable and they correct either formal properties of articles or they correct those which really refer to their knowledge.

You've written: "Expert opinion are welcome". Mr Gadomski is an expert in cognitive science as a member of the scientific board of ECONA (Interuniversity Center for Research on Cognitive Processing in Natural and Artificial Systems) which include 12 biggest Italian Universities and is chairman of many international cognitive science conferences. Mr Gadomski was in editorial board of Cognitive Processing (ed. Springer) by few years. And look: First International Workshop Socio-Cognitive Engineering Foundations http://erg4146.casaccia.enea.it/SCEF/index.html where list of members of the scientific board, is evidence on the recognition of Gadomski. I've written this link, because I suppose, you don't know these persons which are universally recognized as authorities on the cognitive subject.

Mr Gadomski is an expert. You're not. I'm sorry. Write into google engine "socio-cognitive engineering" and everybody may see results: Wikipedia Sharples Gadomski Gadomski Gadomski Sharples In socio-cognitive engineering are two main approaches, one represented by Sharples(more focused on human oriented technology development/informatics perspective) and second by Gadomski(based on general sistemic perspective/paradigms http://erg4146.casaccia.enea.it/toga-parad.htm and functional representation of abstract inteligent agent). The approach of Castelfranchi is closer to Gadomski but Castelfranchi underline stronger social aspect of socio-cognitive modelling.

You've written too:

- "the articles should reflect what is in reliable sources" and you removed good source from international journal! Are web pages more reliable than articles of Gadomski?

- "still sourced only to Gadomski" and you removed articles, where is more than one author (Adam Maria Gadomski, Sandro Bologna, Giovanni Di Costanzo, Anna Perini, Marco Schaerf, Mauro Cappelli, Massimo Sepielli). Congratulations.

No logic. No sence.

--CogSci11 (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

No sense is correct. We originally started removing traces of Gadomski's work from Wikipedia when he insisted on adding it everywhere a word he "defines" was used. Then, like Carl Hewitt, he kept re-inserting it under different names. I don't recall whether Gadomski, himself, is banned from Wikipedia, but he's certainly restricted not to edit or comment on things loosely (or claimed to be) related to his TOGA meta-theory. If you can convince us that you are not he, you may be allowed to add relevant pointers, provided you can also provide evidence that he and his theories are not WP:FRINGE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how looked this situation in the past. I know that you're not an expert in cognitive science domain (I'm sorry. It's true) and you shouldn't remove link to good journal (I bought one of this article and I can write that is good). I finished study of cognitive science but I don't want write my surname. You're unpredictable, don't keep rules of discussion and you don't answer on my questions and you've written that 'no sense is correct' - no comments) and I think that giving any information about me don't change this situation. Wikipedia can check my login/log/e-mail and they know that I am not Mr Gadomski.

I'm convinced that you have no right removing new articles from good source (never mind who is an author). o! I saw that I pasted wrong link (referring to login page) to the article(joint work), better is http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.58.6341&rank=1 article is better than abstract. I think, that somebody could ask Mr Gadomski to insert this article on his page but I supposed that it can be problem with copyright but in wikipedia is lot of links to books and to the materials not directly available on the web.(nevermind)

Now I'm sorry but I don't have so lot of time like you. I don't know what you do every day but I see that you're editing at night and day very different topics. Are you an expert of everything?

If you write 'no sense is correct', further discussion has no sence. I'll insert link of this discussion on Gadomski user page(if it's user page of really Mr A.M.Gadomski). Anyway. Thank you. I didn't know that he has a user page on wikipedia and I see that you discussed with Mr Gadomski on his user talk page. It's interesting :) Anyway, Have a nice day and night removing... :) --CogSci11 (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, In my opinion my addition in the Climate change in the United States deserved its place. [35] I received WP:Tea for this addition.[36]

Climate change in the United States: Potential effects of climate change in the United States: EPA's website provides information on climate change: EPA Climate Change. Climate change is a problem that is affecting people and the environment. Human-induced climate change has e.g. the potential to alter the prevalence and severity of extremes such as heat waves, cold waves, storms, floods and droughts.

In the discussion we can agree about the appropriate sources: Talk:Climate change in the United States. Watti Renew (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't understand your short comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Lindenberg (talk • contribs) 03:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What you wrote is an interesting theory. However, it would be helpful if someone other than you propounded it. Much less than that might be appropriate; your two paragraphs have nothing not in common, and your "3-way symmetry" is not a "symmetry". Aside from that, your main points are already in the article as advantages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"if someone other than you propounded it" - Bob Palais (the author of Pi is Wrong) has propounded the idea that students make mistakes with extra or missing 2's or 1/2's in their formulas because of this, both publicly and in emails to me.

When you say my two paragraphs have nothing not in common, do you mean they're repetitive? The second paragraph is purely about the practical benefits (fewer equations to memorize, fewer mistakes). The first paragraph is about this three-way symmetry being an indication that tau is the true circle constant.

When you have three sets of equations that match each other closely in form, the word "symmetry" seems accurate. What would you rather I call it?

What's already in the article doesn't mention the thin triangles at all, which these other equations are derived from, and doesn't mention the "symmetry" between the equations for circumference and arclength.

Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The drawing at the top of my web page sites.google.com/site/taubeforeitwascool might help make this clearer. There are also a couple paragraphs of explanatory text below it, if that helps.

Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) "Symmetry" does not seem accurate to me; but that's not important at this point. The point is that you're quoting your web page as a source, and there seems no use of "symmetry" among the tau people other than you. Furthermore, a "short arc" / "thin wedge" and "circumference" / "full circle" are examples of "arc" / "sector", so there's no difference in the formula. That does support the use of τ, but they are already included in the "advantages".

If you want to release your drawing to the public domain or with a CC-by-SA license, you can upload it to Wikipedia ad use it in the article. I don't think it that helpful, but perhaps others will. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't quoting my web page as a source. I was just giving a link to a drawing that shows the idea more clearly than I can express in written text. I created an external link with the word "Illustration", not a reference. However, I've been developing that drawing with feedback from Bob Palais, Michael Hartl, Peter Harremoes, and Kevin Houston.

The point I was trying to make by spelling out that the area of the thin triangle was ${\displaystyle {\scriptstyle {\frac {1}{2}}}base*height={\scriptstyle {\frac {1}{2}}}\phi r*r={\scriptstyle {\frac {1}{2}}}\phi r^{2}}$ instead of just writing ${\displaystyle {\scriptstyle {\frac {1}{2}}}\phi r^{2}}$ is that I'm not saying this is just a very short arc. Of course we can use ${\displaystyle {\scriptstyle {\frac {1}{2}}}\theta r^{2}\scriptstyle }$ on any size arc no matter how small. But this is a triangle with three straight sides. That's why I list it separately as a third case.

Until I can convince you this argument has enough merit not to be deleted, I'll post my web page under Further reading.

Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I modified the entry that was there to include the circumference/arclength formula similarity. This time, unlike last time, I did put my web page as a reference. I could also list Peter Harremoës's page and a forum posting by Pi Manifesto author Michael Cavers to show you I'm not the only one who has mentioned this argument for tau publicly. But my website has the most thorough treatment of it. I actually do hope that changes as more people become aware of this argument for tau.

Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy of not calling people or groups "terrorist". This is not an indication of condoning "terrorist" activities, but of neutrality

Is there something you're not understanding? Public awareness (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a strong consensus — to the point that people disagreeing are often blocked — that the 9/11 perpetrators are terrorists, and should be called such. I'm not sure about the Taliban article, and there isn't really a consensus to that effect on the USS Cole articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You block people because they are trying to make it more neutral? That's infuriating! How many of the people who support "terrorist" would call calling them freedom fighters acceptable? None, because its not neutral. Why don;t you block people who try to force their opinions into articles instead and stop the strong pro-US bias in wikipedia. Public awareness (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

And don't get me wrong I'm far from infavour of probably any group that is being called a terrorist group today, its the disparity that anti-west groups are called terrorists and identical pro-west groups are called militant that started me about trying to fix it all. Public awareness (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It's pro-world, not pro-US. It was suggested that we source "terrorist" in the main 9/11 article, but the decision was it was pointless to add ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]...[50]}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you could have "Pol pot was evil^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]...[50]}" but you don't, because its an opinion. Public awareness (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

For my edit at sept. 11, I was following the rule you linked to "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." I changed it to add "in-text attribution". Public awareness (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:September 11 attacks/FAQ#Q2 — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I already knew a majority of editors are westerners...did you know...a majority of people can be biased against a minority? Public awareness (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A terrorist is someone who tries to affect public policy by using acts of violence to create fear in large populations of innocent people. By that standard, the 19 hijackers of 9/11/01 were terrorists. This is a matter of fact, not just opinion. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Even if what you said was true, it's irrelevant to my edit that Rubin undid. This is about the classification of organizations by governments and not about the labelling of the specific attacks. Hamas is labelled as a terrorist organization by its enemies, but many countries and people know they are fighting an occupation similar to the French Resistance or Polish resistance movement in World War II, and would not call them a terrorist organization. I want it so that we follow the wikipedia rule of "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." I added "in-text attribution" to the article. Public awareness (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Israel bombs its neighbours daily "to affect public policy by using acts of violence to create fear in large populations of innocent people." Can I go label them a terrorist state? I mean "This is a matter of fact, not just opinion." Public awareness (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Public awareness has now been blocked indefinitely as a sock of the banned editor User:Passionless.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You might be able to make a point about al Queda, but not 9/11. That's recognized as a terrorist act by all governments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Israel, how its actions are properly described has no bearing on the issue of the 9/11/01 terrorists.

Although in some cases Israel may have engaged in unfair discrimination against Arabs and Muslims, that is not the same thing as engaging in terrorism. Generally, Israel does not target innocent people to create fear in the Palestinian population at large. Rather it attacks specific persons or installations which it believes have launched attacks on Israel's population. So, as far as I can see (and despite the fact that I do not like Israel), Israel is not engaging in terrorism. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur. I added a minor comment on Commons:User_talk:Mr.Johnson1982#Chip_image. Your simple nowiki-ed demo sample had 2 disadvantages: it does not respect the indent level, and (long) text lines flow to the right out of the box (in a narrow browser window). I placed a html work-around at it, perhaps you find further use for it. Kind regards.SomeHuman 12:02, 19 September 2011‎ (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Euler's Identity contains a section about how Euler's Identity is just a special case of a more general identity. Is it possible to put a footnoted reference to it in another Wikipedia article? (Or would this particular fact just be considered "common knowledge" that doesn't require a footnoted reference?)

Thanks for your help.

Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

As Wikipedia articles are not reliable, it is rare that one should use a Wikipedia article as a reference (enclosed in < ref > < /ref > tags). In this particular case, we don't have a reference given. I consider it (the value of cos π and sin π) "common knowledge" or an example of WP:CALC, but it's possible that other editors might differ. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

To Joseph Lindenberg: Why not just use an ordinary link to it rather than giving it as a reference? JRSpriggs (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I did indeed end up using an ordinary internal link. References are sometimes (like in this case) easier to use because you just stick a footnote at the end of the sentence. With links, you have to pick an appropriate word or words in the sentence to highlight. Equations don't highlight well. And this equation doesn't have a well-known name I could use in the sentence. So I ended up highlighting the phrase "the general identity". Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, I should have been clearer about which identity I meant. Yes, I agree with you about cos π and sin π, but I didn't mean Euler's Formula. I meant that the sum of any set of nth roots of unity equals zero. So Euler's Identity is just the n=2 case of that identity, which doesn't seem to have an official name. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep this kind of thing up and you won't be an administrator for much longer.[37] Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous...I see, so he'll be desysopped for not blocking you or issuing a topic ban?--MONGO 04:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What I see is a mention by Malleus of some facetious yet irrelevant statement by an unidentified editor for which a diff isn't provided, followed by Malleus feigning "victim" by posturing in reaction to imagined insults, followed by Malleus's inflammatory remarks about an editor's character via self-diagnosis of that editor's conscience. Probably not last and certainly not least, one can see Malleus's provocative posturing and threats to an admin on the article talk and on the admin's personal talk. Not surprising for a 9/11 article. My condolences, Arthur! :) John Shandy` • talk 05:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You wrote:

(Number 8 in the present article.)

It was added by the author of the reference. We need to find others who use that term, or it should be excised except, potentially, as an example of usage.

Number 8 is referenced four places. What term did you mean? "Pizza-style slices"? Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What I should have said is that any statement sourced only to site should be excised, unless there are other references. "Terms" was incorrect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur. I am glad to see that you are still editing Wikipedia. You probably do not remember me; I tried to help User:Ludvikus when he was improving the article on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Someone has created an article on the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory. Please could you keep an eye on it.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=CaDA2uhr8lkC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=%22conspiracy+accounts%22&source=bl&ots=L48Vqu_hm5&sig=2nbZ-rg-pD62fx8QNTEj1QTZgaU&hl=en&ei=4RB-TvmaL5TViALXy_y5Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22conspiracy%20accounts%22&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=qMIDrggs8TsC&pg=PA377&lpg=PA377&dq=%22conspiracy+accounts%22&source=bl&ots=tfbhUZyou8&sig=a92O0L8snMy26tvah4dEQ7FT4LQ&hl=en&ei=4RB-TvmaL5TViALXy_y5Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22conspiracy%20accounts%22&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=LiwjVsNBw-cC&pg=PA13&dq=%22conspiracy+accounts%22&hl=en&ei=lRF-TtToJ87OiALh0aW6Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22conspiracy%20accounts%22&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=8tX17AXujekC&pg=PA43&dq=%22conspiracy+accounts%22&hl=en&ei=lRF-TtToJ87OiALh0aW6Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22conspiracy%20accounts%22&f=false

"Conspiracy accounts" is common and easily understandable English, but your new version is fine as well. Mystylplx (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This deletion might be controversial, so send it to AfD. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be very grateful if you can explain the logic of your comment here to me, as I do not understand it. Thanks. --John (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That was not directed at you, but at MF. IF AQFK thinks it should be directed at you, please ask him why. As far as I'm concerned, your proposals are against Wikipedia consensus, but are not intended to be against policy. MF acknowledges that his proposals are against Wikipedia policy, and thinks they should be made regardless. Whether or not they are the same proposals, the mens rea is different. (Sorry, I'm going to law school.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The extent of your misunderstanding is very impressive. Malleus Fatuorum 13:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Read your user talk page header. I don't see any interpretation, other than that you are working against Wikipedia policies. Now, that's fine, if you're working to change the policies, but civil disobedience, in the context of Wikipedia, is generally considered to be making a WP:POINT.

Your comments in the 9/11 area make it clear that you think that Wikipedia policies make it impossible to improve the article. That's a fine opinion, as far as it goes. But you should work to change the policies, or, at the very least, state (on the policy talk pages) how you think they should be changed. "Bitching" about the policies on article talk pages is counter-productive.

Now, I don't know your full history. Perhaps you've worked to change the policies you disagree with, or are still working to do so. It's still inappropriate to complain about the policy, or request changes contrary to the policy, on article talk pages, even if you were to do so civilly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Now that's just horse shit Arthur, and you ought to know it. Malleus Fatuorum 13:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Explain what other interpretation is reasonable, please. (Or, accurate, if you prefer.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there any point? You have deliberately misrepresented the statement on my talk page. which makes no mention of policies, only Wikipedia's governance: "There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change". One example of that is the fact that there are still administrators like you around. Malleus Fatuorum 14:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I apologize. I couldn't see that it what you wrote, but it is a possible interpretation. Would you like me to withdraw some of my comments at Talk:911, and at ANI, to reflect that? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't care less. People here seem to believe whatever they like anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I never thought or said that it was directed at me, Arthur, what a curious thing to say. Your note above that you may have misunderstood Malleus is a welcome one. The problem I am still having is the gulf between your AN/I complaint, specifically your point 2 which said "[38] (Statement that only Americans are allowed to edit the article)". As we now know that Malleus was saying the exact opposite of what you were claiming, and we now also know that he was responding to this comment, where MONGO says "If sensationalizing the trivia that is associated with 9/11 and thereby departing from the focus and scope of the article is the manner in which non Americans think the article needs to go to be an FA, then that is a pity", could you possibly go back, apologize to Malleus and censure MONGO? I invited you to do this here, but you may have missed it. Thanks for your consideration. --John (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see where your misunderstanding came from, my first sentence is ambiguous. The "to me" was meant to ask you to explain your remark to me, not to imply that the remark was addressed to me. Sorry about that. Anyway, I think it would be great if you could offer a clarification of your apparent misunderstanding. --John (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, I am still waiting for an answer to the above. Let's recap; you misunderstood a header on a user's talk page (one which has been there considerable time) and thought it meant he was against Wikipedia policies, so you escalated it to AN/I with a bunch of diffs that the consensus was weren't too bad. While there, it was also pointed out to you that you had completely misunderstood one of his edits, to the extent that you understood the opposite of what it meant. I just pointed you to a pretty egregious edit from MONGO which does in fact mean what you wrongly thought Malleus meant when you reported him. You've since posted against Malleus at an Arbcom enforcement, but you haven't yet clarified that you now acknowledge your misunderstanding, or explained why it wasn't really a misunderstanding, though you apologized above for misreading Malleus's criticism of Wikipedia's governance which was a nice start. A couple of days have passed and you haven't replied. If you need more time to come up with your answer, that's fine, but per WP:ADMIN you are required to explain your admin actions, as I am now asking you to do. "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." Sorry to be a nuisance, but your mistakes could have serious consequences for another editor and it's important that you understand that. --John (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's an odd thing that you think anyone should be censored for for incivility or bigoted claims when you yourself have stated repeatedly that the article is dominated by "nationalists" and you've referred to your opposition in some really saucy words as well...diffs are available here or at another venue should you choose to dance...I'll trade a topic ban for my being an SOB in dealing with POV pushing trolls such as you for a topic ban for your multi-year overt and radical POV pushing and CT promotions in 9/11 namespace.--MONGO 05:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears I misunderstood the header, but I brought him to ANI because of extreme incivility and personal attacks in Talk:September 11 attacks, the like of which I had not seen on that article (although, I admit, I hadn't been watching it for a while.) I still cannot see another possible interpretation of his talk page, but, under WP:AGF, I have to assume he meant what he said his interpretation was, as grammatically incorrect as it might be.

Although the ANI thread seems to have properly come to an end, the AE thread reflects new attacks after the AE/911 warning.

I don't think I have anything to apologize to, except on a minor point, to MF. You probably can still see his response. All I can say is that, if I run across MF again, and he acts as he has on 911, I'll probably report him to ANI again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Likewise. How much longer do you think you're likely to remain an administrator if you keep this up Arthur? Malleus Fatuorum 06:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably longer than you remain on Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You're obviously a hopeless dreamer. Malleus Fatuorum 06:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

So, nothing at all learned from the AN/I report, Arthur? Nothing you would do differently? Nothing at all? You said you were going to law school and you shared the mens rea link with me; have you seen our article on vexatious litigation, it's a good one! Seriously, I am very disappointed that you can't see anything wrong in your conduct there. Maybe Malleus is right and we need to consider our options. Would you welcome a wider discussion on this? --John (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sick to death of kids like Arthur chucking their ignorant weight around. I for one would welcome a wider discussion of his behaviour. Malleus Fatuorum 06:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm sick of you throwing your ignorant weight around, and I now think Wikipedia would improved, overall, if you were blocked. But it's not going to happen unless you tick off Jimbo, you do something that would get the Foundation in trouble, or Wikipedia actually tries to enforce civility. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Was this a good example of the civility you say you wish to see enforced, Arthur? I'm not a great believer in running to mummy whenever I don't like how things are going, and I sense you are not going to change your mind on this, so I'm going to leave you alone for now. I am very clear though that you made a mistaken (let's be generous) report at AN/I and did not have the integrity or courage to amend or withdraw when your mistake was pointed out. Please be very clear that as well as being highly disappointed with you on a personal level, I do not regard this as admin-like behavior, and that I will escalate if I see you throwing your highly-educated weight around again in the future. Have a nice evening, --John (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Arthur....neither Malleus or John have a leg to stand on here...John has shown repeated examples of loathsome behavior for an admin and I can easily demonstrate that with a plethora of diffs should the need arise. A topic ban is in order for both editors...and a outright civility parole is inevitable for Malleus at the very least.MONGO 11:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, I hate to eavesdrop, but I tend to talk-stalk admins I've had good encounters with. While you've been accused of incivility, I see as clear as day on your talk page that editors have directly and overtly attempted to insult you, dismiss you as a kid (knowing full well that you are an adult), and attack your education, all of which are uncalled for no matter what mistakes or misinterpretations you may make. If these editors ever manage to gather enough children of the corn to call your administrative position into question, please notify me of the venue and I will gladly testify to the attacks insidiously launched at you in this talk page discussion. Cheers, John Shandy` • talk 16:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, MONGO and John Shandy`. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the merger of 2305843009213693951 into Mersenne prime I think you can go ahead with that per WP:MERGE Proposing a merger IV. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I posted the following validated information which was promptly deleted.

___________

• Zapper: A device thought to pulse low voltage DC current through the body at specific frequencies. Clark said this device kills viruses, bacteria and parasites. In this respect, there are several videos on the Internet showing the zapper works in vitro^[3], killing bacteria and protozoa. The concern is that while a device may work in vitro does not mean that it works in vivo. There are also some questions of safety. In one case, a patient with a cardiac pacemaker suffered arrhythmias because of interference from the "Zapper." ^[4] This was an older type of pacemaker and the same kind of interference can be expected from most any electrical device that is attached to the body, such as a TENS unit. Anyone wearing a pacemaker should be warned about the possibility of electrical interference.^[5][6] Recent studies show that frequencies do have an effect on reducing cancer^[7].

___________

If the FDA, NIH, and PubMed can not be cited, what relevance does the article have. It is only a censored part truth with an agenda. All of these sites are available to be freely linked to. The information is entirely relevant.

If the link to the video is an issue, it, along with others is available on youtube.com .

1. That's not what you added.
2. "A device thought to pulse..." was only in Hulda's mind.
3. The videos are clearly not reliable.
4. "Recent studies show that frequencies do have an effect on reducing cancer" appears to be, as far as I can tell, a completely different device. I'm not sure about the modality.

No, that would be complete WP:SYNTHESIS to the extend reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You Wrote: :#That's not what you added.

The information above was cut from my computer and pasted into the page. I can not see how you claim that it is not what I added.

You Wrote: A device thought to pulse..." was only in Hulda's mind.

No, you are apparantly not aware that Hulda Clark was not the first or only one to promote the use of pulses. Even the FDA promotes the use of pulses to kill microbes such are bacteria, protozoa, fungi, and virus in milk, juices, and water. ^[8]

You Wrote: :#The videos are clearly not reliable.

The videos are easily reproduced using only a source of pulsed electricity and a video microscope. They are made by amateurs and professionals alike. It is not a parlor trick, it is real.

You Wrote: :#"Recent studies show that frequencies do have an effect on reducing cancer" appears to be, as far as I can tell, a completely different device. I'm not sure about the modality.

The basis of all of this is the generation of resonant frequencies. Everything has some sort of resonance. I would submit that if you are not studied in this then you are not the person who should be rejecting the entries of those who are familiar.

On top of that, I see you frequently hiding behind the mask of neutrality, yet in this case, you are obviously taking a side with an agenda. The entire page is strictly one-sided and these are not the first facts that have been unreasonably rejected. The net result, Mr. Orwell is that WikiPedia ( the source of reliable information ) is becoming Wiki-Ganda ( a source of propaganda ).

Perhaps you should start by reading "Body Electric" by Dr. Robert O. Becker, M.D. It is an outstanding source of information on the influences of electricity on life and visa versa. Then study the Medical Electric Battery, Rife, Beck, and many others.

Regardless, seeing that actions that have occurred here explains to me why the WikiPedia is not considered to be a credible source of information. It only tells the half of the story that the controllers want the public to hear.

How many of Dr. Clark's books have you read completely and thoroughly?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CPUDave (talk • contribs) 03:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC) 

Sorry for forgetting to sign.

CPUDave (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Zapper: A device thought to pulse low voltage DC current through the body at specific frequencies.

The very fact that the zapper does actually produce pulses across and through the body can be observed and documented using an oscilloscope. This has been done and images are available at paradevices.com ^[9][10]. Even WikiPedia ^[11] shows that validity of Bio-electric stimulation which is the same thing, just a different term. The point here is that denying public access to this information when there is nothing to refute it is nothing more than blatant censorship.

As for the efficacy of the zapper, this too, has been established in at least one study. ^[12] This study shows that the "total with any improvement was 97.9%" ( for those who used the zapper ) and "In the control group, the average control also had 1.1 chronic infections; ... total with any improvement was 61.3%. In the group that used the zapper "48.2% reported substantial symptomatic improvement" where in the control group, only "12.9% reported significant improvement" This clearly shows that the zapper had a positive effect in a study with a control group. There has never been any study to refute this in any way. Disallowing this information, again is censorship.

I believe that I read somewhere that you are studying law. I would hope that your pursuit of this is in the interest of fairness and justice and not for the purposes of oppression which is what is happening here. Readers of the WikiPedia should have a RIGHT to hear both sides of the story in an unbiased manner.

CPUDave (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires that information be supported by reliable sources. Clearly, most of your sources are not reliable. Hulda's writings are not exactly reliable. Paradevices.com does not (at first glance) appear reliable. Bio-electric stimulation therapy may have its own problems, but if the sources there support the statements you make here, it could be listed.

I assure you that I've fought to retain information that I believe to be false, because it appears it appears in reliable sources. Here, I see a number of "sources" which are not reliable, and none which are clearly reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what type of vandalism I did? I am not a mean user, I am nice. Pikachu4170 (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The vandalism was in your edit summary. The edit was merely extremely against Wikipedia guidelines; but test4 redirects to vand4. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So that means i am fine or not? Because I don't want to be banned. If I do get banned, I have to leave Wikipedia and NEVER use it. Pikachu4170 (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You're not likely to get banned, yet. Although you have carefully erased your warnings, that was only your first "final warning", so you would normally only be blocked for a repeat violation, and (if you hadn't erased your warnings), only for a short period of time. As it stands, the blocking admin might not check your precise warning structure, and give you a longer block. Still, you're unlikely to be banned, or even to have an indefinite block. Please stop what you're doing when warned, though, or at least ask (usually on the article talk page) whether your edit should be made. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The left of a production rule in a grammar can be null. Here is the proof:

Imagine there is a rule in the grammar that says:

λ -> a B C | A B c | ...

And there are other rules such as:

A b C -> X y Z w

I can construct a grammar from this grammar that doesn't have null on the left of production rule and produces EXACTLY what this grammar produces:

Let's introduce a new nonterminal called L (named after lambda)

First rule is:

L -> λ

Then, all the rules are present, except between every two elements (terminal or nonterminal), there is an L. Therefore you get:

L -> L a L B L C L | L A L B L c L | ...

That was for the rule where it said λ -> ...

And for the rest of the grammar:

L A L b L C L -> L X L y L Z L w L

This new grammar produces the same words as the first grammar. In the first grammar, you could put an expression anywhere "out of the blue" because there is a λ between any element and it could produce an expression (because of the rule λ -> ...). In the second case, this role is played by L where, whatever you produce has L's between any non-L element. L can produce the expressions λ could produce in the first grammar and is itself reduce-able to λ.

This was a question in the book "An introduction to formal languages and automata" by Peter Linz which asked what are the implications of having λ on the left of a production rule. I came with this proof that in fact the restriction is not necessary. After no one believing me in the university (like you here), I emailed Peter Linz himself and he said that in fact that restriction is just for simplicity and in Turing's thesis is also not mentioned. Unfortunately I don't have that email anymore to show you.

I couldn't find on the internet the original "paper" that defined unrestricted grammars, but I came across this wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_grammar that also states that there are no restrictions on either side of the production rule.

P.S. If you are interested in an example of such a grammar, imagine this

λ -> ()

This grammar produces nested parentheses. Without using λ, you had to write it like this:

S -> (S) | SS | λ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahbaz Youssefi (talk • contribs) 16:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that you can emulate a language in which the left side of the production rule empty by one which doesn't have such, but that doesn't mean that you should change the definition to allow such rules. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What's the benefit of changing

• ${\displaystyle (\Sigma \cup N)^{*}N(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}}$

aka

• ${\displaystyle (\Sigma \cup N)^{*}\backslash \Sigma ^{*}}$

by

• ${\displaystyle (\Sigma \cup N)^{*}N(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}\cup N^{0}}$

aka

• ${\displaystyle (\Sigma \cup N)^{*}\backslash \Sigma ^{+}}$

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, that is NOT the definition. The definition is that there are not any restrictions (hence the unrestricted grammar). YOU are adding a restriction added for convenience in the definition and you are telling ME that I'm changing the definition? Besides, I merely put one sentence saying that restriction is not necessary. Is that something that should be hidden from readers of wikipedia? Was what I wrote wrong?

Second, you are making it complex. I'm not changing

• ${\displaystyle (\Sigma \cup N)^{*}N(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}}$

to

• ${\displaystyle (\Sigma \cup N)^{*}N(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}\cup N^{0}}$

but in fact I am changing it to

• ${\displaystyle (\Sigma \cup N)^{*}}$

So the definition is NOT the more complicated

• ${\displaystyle (\Sigma \cup N)^{*}N(\Sigma \cup N)^{*}\rightarrow (\Sigma \cup N)^{*}}$

but the simpler

• ${\displaystyle (\Sigma \cup N)^{*}\rightarrow (\Sigma \cup N)^{*}}$

Just for the sake of those out there that actually wonder why that restriction exists, please let them know that it is not a must, but merely a convenience.

If you want further proof I could try to find a paper or some source as reference.

And my question is, what makes your knowledge superior than mine that you decide to revert my change before studying it? Isn't wikipedia about collaborating? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahbaz Youssefi (talk • contribs) 22:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, the definition of formal grammar includes that there must be a not-terminal. Although any unrestricted grammar can be checked by a non-deterministic Turing machine, and the possible states of a non-deterministic Turing machine can be checked by a formal grammar, there are still reasons why the formalism of the formal grammar should be distringuished from the unrestricted grammar. The mere addition of the empty string, although easy to confirm as inessential (as both of us have), is pointless.

A similar argument could be used to the one above (not going through non-deterministic Turing machines) to allow any non-empty transformation string would be to add a nonterminal ${\displaystyle c'}$ for each terminal c; in the rules for non-empty strings, replace all terminals ${\displaystyle c}$ by the corresponding ${\displaystyle c'}$ on both sides of the rule, and add closing rules ${\displaystyle c'\rightarrow c}$ for each terminal c. This clearly shows the languages accepted by an unrestricted grammar and a formal grammar are the same. It still doesn't support your additions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

So, are you saying that unrestricted grammars are NOT part of formal grammars? Because if they are, that immediately means the restriction of having one nonterminal on the left would be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahbaz Youssefi (talk • contribs) 12:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur,

I provided information of interest to the subject matter about our not having a year zero and you deleted it. The reason you are stating is that the information is not subject related. However, if there are no mathematical systems in which zero is absent, then this helps readers understand that our having a calendar without a zero is a man-made accomplishment (similar to art, and not nature). There is no reason to ridicule the man-made result, but it is good for the wiki-readers to know the difference why the calendar arrived without a zero. Here is the information one more time, and I hope you will revert your deletion, since wiki is about information on the subject matters, and the artful aspect of it should not be left out of the picture.

If you (or others) can write a better introduction, then I appreciate that. From a mathematical perspective, systems always come with a zero (i.e., a blank spot).

Mathematics

Whether systems do indeed exist without a zero is a question that can be answered by mathematics. Please note that systems are based on the people adhering to them, such as historians who never use a year zero. This segment on Mathematics does not undermine the calendar as currently used, because its use is not based on mathematics.

When investigating the natural numbers, a pattern can be distinguished among these numbers that leads to the forced use of zero. From this, the conclusion is justified that all numerical systems automatically come with a zero.

Source: http://www.pentapublishing.com/Math.html

Greetings,

Fredrick FredrickS (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Penta Publishing is not an inherently reliable source, and the author ( Fredrick Schermer) doesn't appear to be a known expert in anything. We can't use it. Perhaps Wikibooks or Wikiversity could use your material. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I closed the discussion and merged 2305843009213693951 into Mersenne prime. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Rubin:

I see that it is not possible to edit the introduction at the top of the Griffin page.

There is a link to your name there.

Are these two things connected?

The page fails to mention that Dr. Griffin was professor of philosophy of religion and theology, from 1973 to 2004, at the Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University.

Thank you,

PureLogic PureLogic (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's in the lede, isn't it? To clarify, are we talking about the page David Ray Griffin, or some other page? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

To Arthur Rubin: To clarify, yes, the title of my post to you was the David Ray Griffin page. There is no edit capability there. How do I edit that? PureLogic (talk) 06:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be protected. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

you obviously do not now anything about my country, and I am so sorry about that. Wikipedia is obviously not free and it does not share knowlege..it is a faschistic place for the privileged molesters. The fact that I posted is true. Live long and prosper my mathematician friend. 35! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.60.137 (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to preserve as much information as possible in the merge but there has been a significant amount of data loss due to my inability to locate proper sources. I want you to know that I'm still searching for good sources for the missing information and when I find them it is going back in. Serendi^podous 19:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, btw I'm talking about Timeline of the far future Serendi^podous 11:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I figured that one out.... Some of the really distant times might be taken from The Five Ages of the Universe (which I reviewed on Epinions, once.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I made a new proposition on the article's talk page. Could you kindly comment? Cheers, Racconish ^Tk 08:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

List of 'Occupy' protest locations. Another clueless admin who makes changes without discussion. I have been editing the page. Have you? My page name change is uncontroversial. If you had read the discussion and followed the links you would have seen that the discussion was not about whether single or double quotes were used. Admins like you are why many people quit Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving the page from List of "Occupy" protest locations to List of 'Occupy' protest locations while discussion of a move to List of Occupy protest locations is in process is improper, breaking the automatated links to the correct discussion, which I'll have to restore. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I had already fixed most of the links, and the bot had fixed the others already. By the way your edit comment about "correct grammar" is actually incorrect. I hate it when admins make up stuff as they go along. News media are using single quotes not double quotes. And double quotes in URLs are problematic when sharing URLs. Single quotes in URLs are not a problem. By the way I am an admin on Wikia, and I know the admin game. I try not to sound more authoritative and knowledgeable than I am. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Single quotes in URLs are problematic, as well, for different reasons. And moving articles while a move request is in progress is still disruptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you just admit you are wrong. The disruption is on your end. Keep making up stuff. The discussion was basically concluded. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, whether or not your moves would be correct, it is improper to move A to B while a discussion of a move from A to C is in progress, no matter how slight the differences. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It is only improper in your opinion. Next time try thinking more instead of blindly following rules, and jumping in. It is not a math equation. "If it aint broke, don't fix it." --Timeshifter (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

But you broke it. Some of the pointers were adjusted, but the move section itself was misleading, at best. You should make your arguments for the move in the appropriate forum, namely Talk:"Occupy" protests#Requested move. I see you haven't done that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep digging yourself in deeper. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"Admins like you are why many people quit Wikipedia". You know, I am not a big contributor, but when I corrected something many many people think wrong (including this admin here), he just reverts the change and doesn't listen to reason (As he left my talk with him here unanswered too). Yeah, you know what? I won't give a damn about Wikipedia anymore. And because of what you did, I won't be able to trust what I read in Wikipedia anymore unless I cross check it with some other sources (because I know even if some people want to fix the errors of Wikipedia, certain admins don't allow it) Shahbaz Youssefi (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

What you "corrected" was not wrong. The fact that "formal grammars" (as we, and the reliable sources, define them) and "unrestricted grammars" recognize the same languages, does not necessarily make them the same subject. I think they might be, but none of the reliable sources so far have commented on that. Regardless, changing the subject of the article formal grammar to that of unrestricted grammar is inappropriate, unless the reliable sources do so. The sources in my possession distinguish the concepts. If you had proposed changing the subject, we could have discussed that, and the articles might have been merged. But changing the definition to something not used in the real world is just wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The point of my proof is that CH is independent of ZF but.... It is not independent of ZFC and Induction. So you need to assume two things... and then you prove something you knew... and something you didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatisFGH (talk • contribs) 00:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to check, but what do you mean by "Induction"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Learn what a trichotomy is, and what strong induction is, then you should be able to understand why I am right even though Cantor was also correct.

Don't worry, you'll be able to understand it when I explain it to CMI and get my million. Thanks for looking though, I appreciate people asking questions so that I can show there's nothing wrong with it.

WhatisFGH (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that what you mean by Induction may be the V=L. Either that, or it's inconsistent with ZF. I can't tell which, at the moment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

a cool hip teacher, and is very knowlageable on the american liturature arts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indians15 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 16:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, I've your edits and comments on a number of subjects I edit, all I gotta say is right on man. You seem to edit in a fair and non-partisan way which is great. I think it is rare to find people willing to give both people the time of day at an argument. Keep up the good work, we need more editors like you.

--Andy0093 (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please view the discussion at the article's talk page concerning the content in question, and accept this friendly reminder that you have made three reversions on The Colbert Report article within 24 hours, and that your last edit was not a minor one, as it removed content as part of a dispute, and that rollback should not be used for such. Thank you. - SudoGhost 07:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Arthur Rubin/Archive 2011! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

Hey Arthur Rubin/Archive 2011! I'm just dropping you a message because you've commented on (or expressed an interest in) the Article Feedback Tool in the past. If you don't have any interest in it any more, ignore the rest of this message :).

If you do still have an interest or an opinion, good or bad, we're holding an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 GMT/UTC in #wikimedia-office to discuss completely changing the system. In attendance will be myself, Howie Fung and Fabrice Florin. All perspectives, opinions and comments are welcome :).

I appreciate that not everyone can make it to that session - it's in work hours for most of North and South America, for example - so if you're interested in having another session at a more America-friendly time of day, leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I've been watching 99.190.85.15 and yourself adding and deleting a link to Executive Order 13514- ie 13514 . When I follow the link it takes me to a reasonable copy of http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-24518.pdf . Is there a reason that you hate the s: link so much? Could you tell the guys at Talk:Plug-in hybrid so that perhaps you two can come to an agreement because continually adding and deleting it with no real explanation is driving the rest of us crazy. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  06:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's still a pseudo-link. Aside from jumping around so that enforcing 3RR is impossible, there's no reason not to use an external link to the actual GPO URL, if a link is necessary. I don't really see it as necessary, but it's not harmful.

The editor would prefer creating an article Executive Order 13514, but can't seem to find anyone to create it. I suppose any executive order meets the WP:N standard, but, in order for there to be a valid article, there has to be some reliable secondary source which talks about it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. It seems reasonable to have a single link to the real source instead of a copy. Could you put those thoughts at Talk:Plug-in hybrid so that the other editor might see your view. I've found that simply reverting changes just makes the other side more determined. But informed debate often brings the desired outcome quicker - or at least gains you more supporters. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  11:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could add a in-heading summary to describe the gist of your proposal here. That page is getting swamped in proposals already, and I think participation is dwindling because of WP:TLDR. Having some meaningful headings would probably help. Per WP:TPG I could even do it myself, but I'd rather have you summarize your own proposal. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, what in the name of God are you doing in law school? Strikes me as a perfect waste of a first-rate mind and an expensive graduate education in mathematics. LOL

BTW, the so-called "TQ" punctuation that I learned in grade school always placed semi-colons and colons outside the quotation marks in a partial quote of original text. I don't believe that's an ALWD innovation; I believe it's a standard part of the usual American system of quotation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

ALWD specifies that only periods and commas are inside the closing quote, and implies that colons and semicolons use LQ; I believe standard TQ usage was that colons and semicolons are outside the closing quote.

As for law school; I've always been interested in law, and have been unable to find a job in my regular profession as a (primarily aerospace) engineer. If you can suggest employment....? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I would think a Ph.D. in mathematics would be in high demand for a variety of positions, but what do I know? I'm just a lawyer. If you're serious about being an attorney, I would suggest you take every available elective regarding patent law and intellectual property. If your law school has an IP law journal, I would jump on that, too; if your school doesn't, other IP law journals would still love to have a topical article written by someone with your background in engineering and mathematics. You bring something to the table that virtually no other first-year law student in America does, and IP/patent law strikes me as a natural progression for your future career. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Plarem has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Happy Halloween! – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 15:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Zero-Net-Energy USA Federal Buildings. 141.218.36.152 (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Again ... What? How so, per you? 141.218.36.152 (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Prepare to Talk:Climate change mitigation scenarios. 141.218.36.152 (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels. 141.218.36.152 (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC) See Talk:Indirect_land_use_change_impacts_of_biofuels#Include_global_warming_wikilink_and_Portal:global_warming. 141.218.36.152 (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Land use, land-use change and forestry. 141.218.36.152 (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

See Template talk:Global warming. 141.218.36.152 (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Zero-Net-Energy USA Federal Buildings, also regarding Fleet vehicle (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fleet_vehicle&diff=459367260&oldid=459367164), and Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emissions_%26_Generation_Resource_Integrated_Database_(eGRID)&diff=459367339&oldid=459367206). 141.218.36.152 (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be engaged in an edit war on Emissions_&_Generation_Resource_Integrated_Database_(eGRID). Please follow your own excellent advice and withdraw from the conflict before someone gets hurt. I hate it when excellent admins get caught up in what is "right" and allow themselves to be taken down for not following the rules. Thank you. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear, Arthur, I see that you and I disagree as to the reliability of the book, Annals of the World. Where I use it as the foremost reference point for Biblical and Jewish history, you seem to deem it so wrong that any article that references it must be totally destroyed. Every time I try to defend its integrity, or at least the rational to leave the article standing, you flatly ignore me and simply direct me to Wikipedia policies that are non sequitur. So I'm going to take this from a different approach this in the nicest possible way. You tell me, out of your infinite wisdom, what exactly constitutes a reliable, verifiable source? (If the problem with Annals of the World is not because its not a reliable, verifiable source, then you have no right deleting it, as per WP:Accuracy). If for no other reason, I would just like to know what constitutes an accurate source, simply so that my work doesn't get deleted again.

By the way, I also don't understand, even if that one reference was totally unacceptable, how that justifies deleting the whole article. If you actually read my work, you would know I quoted many works outside of Ussher. What makes Ussher so evil, that any article he's mentioned in must be deleted, at the sacrifice of all the other reference? What exactly are you afraid of? But more important than this, I would just like you to give me a definition of a reliable source, please. LutherVinci (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Your article "List of Canaanite rulers was a content fork from Canaan#List of Canaanite rulers as it was on the same subject but had different information, even if it were reliable. Some might say it was a POV fork. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It would have been nice to use FORK instead of ACCURACY in your edit summery, or at least posted a better explanation on the discussions page. Interestingly, I would like to point out that though you deleted the content by he rational of FORK, your still used the word ACCURACY and made a comment on Ussher Chronology. It would be my suspicion, then, that you deleted the article because you don't like James Ussher, (as we've had conversations about him before) but trumps up the charge of FORK when you know that Ussher is actually a reliable source.

Yes, I believe your allegation that my article was a fork is unsubstantial. Expanding and organizing an existing page is not a fork, unless you can point me to a policy that says it is, otherwise your made that charge up. I did not change any of the information in it, as you claim, I instead added more information. Now, it is true that I did not transfer and expand all of the information in the existing article, but that is because I hadn't finished it (do you not notice the "Under construction" sign?).

Finally, "Some might say" is an unsubstantial allegation. The only force in the universe that has the right to prosecute me is not you, nor "some people", nor any administrator, but the law. And that law is Wikipedia's policy.

Now, with that in mind, you still haven't properly defined a reliable, verifiable source. Nor have you provided a policy that says I can't expand an article. I ask you - no, I beg you - for some reasonable explanation. LutherVinci (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You haven't provided a reliable source. As has been pointed out when you made the chronology from Annals of the World the primary chronology in multiple articles including 24th century BC, it's not the generally accepted source. You should only add detailed chronologies where such generally accepted sources exist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so you return to the rational that my sources were unreliable. I suppose it is no longer a Fork in your mind. James Usshur is used as a reliable source here, here, and here, the latter making the quote, "...the commonly accepted Usshur chronology". Just because you, an individual person, has never heard of a 400-year old book, doesn't make it unreliable. And just because not all atheists believe the Bible, doesn't mean that the characters and chronologies provided by it are automatically fictional.

Even so, if Usshur wasn't the accepted chronology that it is, that doesn't by any means necessitate deleting the article. As it was under construction, I might have added more references and alternate chronologies, if you hadn't stepped in. Even without Usshur, there are more than plenty of archeology (and history, but you seem to be the kind to revert that) that can be molded together to form a list of kings that can at least be in chronological order. Would you delete all of that secular information, for the sake of one source?

I still fail to see how Ussher chronology qualifies as an unreliable source, as you continually fail to provide a proper definition thereof.

PS, I apologize for this interruption, as I see you are in the middle of an edit war. I guess I'm not the only victim of your POV. LutherVinci (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

	National Archives Backstage Pass at the Reagan Library
	You are invited to the first-ever backstage pass tour and Wikipedia editathon hosted by the Reagan Presidential Library, in Simi Valley, on Saturday, November 19th! The Reagan Library, home to a real Air Force One and other treasures from American history, will take Wikipedians on a special tour of the grounds and archives, followed by an editathon; free catered lunch provided. Please sign up! Dominic·t 20:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
	If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite.

There is someone editing as an IP and hopping around lots of Ip addersses in Michigan. Do you have any idea who this could be? [39] [40] They seem to revert quite a few your edits, but that could be just because you are patrolling IP edits. I'm not sure what's up with the IP editor but I'm slowly looking into it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

See #What is happening? above for partial history, and User:Arthur Rubin#Global warming / climate change for an earlier partial history. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Arthur Rubin, You had removed a section on unfair Labour Practices in the article about The Institute for Cultural Diplomacy because it was unsourced and seemed irrelevant. It had, however, replaced an earlier section that was indeed sourced, and I believe it is highly relevant because the Institute is known for its large number of interns that spam and cold call universities all over the world. I have therefore reinserted the older passage (which was not written by myself!). I am happy to discuss this if you disagree. Best SkaraB 14:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, I notice this user and either he is stalking your edits or vice versa. Is this a known sock? Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Not known, specifically, but he's in one of the 99.* ranges in which 97.87.29.188 and some in the 141.* range. All the same person, although the 97 is the only one that seems stable for long periods of time. And, I suppose, I'm stalking him, in that, when I use Twinkle to revert his nonsense, it puts the article in my watch list, so I see it when he reinserts it. Search for "Michigan" in WP:ANI for more information. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew when I saw this that this was sock/meatpuppetry. I was trying to find something in SPI...I will look through ANI on your suggestion.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive689#User:99.56.123.165 using edit summaries for Spamming , but I thought there was one more recent. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It is here in archive 723. I was just looking through some of their edits. I'm about to sign off for the evening but was trying to figure out an answer and Bushranger seems to suggest that rangeblocking would be out of order due to the number of affected IPs in that thread. Not sure how to help/handle this...you may want to post to ANI again. Maybe someone can assist...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say you need to stop reverting the IP and get help. I almost blocked you for multiple EWs. Toddst1 (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Koch Industries (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Koch

World Future Council (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Tony Colman

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have reinstated a modified background section that omits what you describe as "trivia" but retains items material to the biography. Do not continue to delete relevant, sourced information from the article. Please note that this person is definitely notable and will continue to have an entry here. I suggest you compare the entries for Sara Jane Moore and Squeaky Fromme to see how this article will end up looking. I am going to keep working on the first paragraph of the Oscar article, because right now it is really terrible. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, a link to the RfC would be necessary, and please remind me whether the RfC really did say that local consensus can override the community's consensus in this respect. Tony (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The RfC (which you (or some Tony, anyway) drafted) did exempt timeline articles entirely; it didn't specifically mention "local consensus", so I've removed it from the rewrite. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I remember explicitly a conversation you had with Colonies Chris, in which you conceded that timeline articles were not included in any exemption. I'm reverting the change pending talk-page discussion. Tony (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember any such conversation. However, there are articles exempted, and it was not only the day-of-year and year/decade/century/millennium articles. Until you can provide a more specific list, the guideline needs to be modified to report that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Got a link to the RfC? Tony (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You said to Chris: "Ahem. Dates are not to be unlinked in articles about chronological periods, such as 2015. I'm not sure about November 2008 in sports. I believe the consensus was that those are also articles about dates, and hence the dates were not to be unlinked. I ask you to revert your date unlinking in those articles. (This is not the same as linking all the dates, which is what I would have to do to revert it if it's not fixed quickly.)".

Then you said, "Please disregard my comment about the sports timelines. There seems to be no project consensus." That is how the matter has been understood. Thank you. Tony (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

If the guideline didn't apply to the sports articles, then they would be on their own. There's no evidence that they objected to the unlinking, even though it was still in violation of unlinking moratorium still in effect at that time. There was also no pattern, even within the article. In "2011 in the US", there was a pattern; dates were linked, until earlier this month. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

to say that i have been 3RR'ing when now you see the scope of this massive disaster here (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Davshul, disruptive editing) --- if only i had been listened to at the begining--70.162.171.210 (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The only exceptions to 3RR are reverting vandalism and removing BLP and Copyright violations. Although I agree the edits you were reverting were disruptive, they were not vandalism; in fact, they appear correct if you don't read the full WP:LINKING guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

[41] Better use talk, the in-line space appear too limited. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 11:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

This is a user who tried adding some wrong information into the Cardinality page Introduction 11/26/2011. Sorry I got that completely wrong. I was thinking that it might be really nice to have some reference to Cardinality of the Continuum in the Intro in really simple terms to give math newbs some idea of what they are getting themselves into by looking at Cardinality. I know it's included in the very next section after that (Comparing Sets) with links to look up natural numbers and real numbers if someone doesn't know what those are. And the amount of weight that someone that knows about set theory gives to its different parts(or how they think about it) is probably different than what someone else can appreciate. But it seems like cardinality being able to distinguish between different infinite sets is a pretty profound thought for someone not used to it, and that this would be good to introduce in the introduction to sort of soften the blow. So on behalf of the mathematically challenged I guess I'm asking you to consider fixing the section I tried adding and leaving it in. For people that already know about cardinality, they can just be mildly annoyed, but reassured in their memory I think. For people that don't know I think it really could help in their appreciation of what they've come upon.

Please delete after reading.

Thanks, J'odore (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC) p.s. Sorry if this is the wrong venue for this.

Hi Arthur - You recently reverted our posting on a planned Taiwan facility using Plasma to process Electrical Waste. Please can you advise what specific content you found to be advertising and we will amend accordingly. The facility is currently under intallation and people will be interested to know that it's in development. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.69.142 (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Arthur, Good to see a fellow Techer fighting pseudoscience; especially good when we're talking about giving false hope to kids with cancer...

Sorry I'm late to the scene but I'll try to keep my eye on it from now on

Karthik Sarma (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean to sign my comment on User talk:Abootmoose? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was trying to sign both RfD notices. I can never remember which of the notices have headers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I was wondering if throwing your signature in there meant you were somehow trying to "me too" my comment or something. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 04:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Today I discovered multiple edits done to the article Hierapolis which came from 2 different editors but the similarity in the edits makes me think that they were done by the same person. The edits were inappropriate or constituted vandalism so I removed all of them. I would like your opinion on this. The accounts are Maviyansima and Peterlewis. Dr. Morbius (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

To Dr. Morbius: You do not have to revert the edits individually. You could have undone them all in one edit since they formed a contiguous block. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

How do I do that? Also, Peterlewis was not using a sock puppet he reverted to a previous edit that had vandalism without checking thereby making it look like he was putting the vandalism back in the article. Dr. Morbius (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Use the radio buttons to look at the diff between just before the block of bad edits and the end of the block. Then click on the "undo" which appears at the upper right, e.g. in "Revision as of 04:11, 1 December 2011 (edit) (undo)". If some partial reversions appear within the block, you can go ahead anyway since by undoing the whole block you re-revert the things which you un-revert. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The edits are well sourced and verifiable, the truth and many agree and we will change the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirianet (talk • contribs) 05:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

None of the (improperly formatted) sources you've added are reliable. Truth is not that important to Wikipedia, but the fact that none of your statements have a reliable source is adequate to remove it. Furthermore, the real (albeit not actually introduced) NESARA deserves some space in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

See the "connection" in that article (the "Koch connection" ) - which cites Greenpeace without identifying the "dirty dozen" as opinion, and implying it is an official list from the UN -- the entire article is pretty much a laugh. Collect (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If Michael Leahy's and Brooks Bayne's websites aren't reliable sources for Tea Party information, then the Tea Party never happened! ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfsbayne (talk • contribs) 05:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The sites may be reliable for what Leahy and Bayne think happened, but your additions fail WP:BLP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Fail how? Those two were there from day one. I've never heard of you. What qualifies you to be an arbiter of tea party information?

Arthur Rubin you and some others have made so many deletions [42] in my work [43] in 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference that I feel that all my work is waisteless here. In my opinion the information has reliable sources that can be verified. In my opinion Greenpeace is a reliable source. Reader may evaluate it. Finland had independence jubileum 6th of December. Greenpeace was invited in the presidents castle party, the most important governmental party of the year. Watti Renew (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I start discussion of this edit [44] on talk page this week. Watti Renew (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, I read somewhere that you are in law school. If so, any interest in helping out with some legal articles? Appeal could use some help. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Arthur,

I see you removed all the links I added. Why is that? The Magic Square links for example were to excellent web pages, completely relevant to that article.

Bob Ziff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rziff (talk • contribs) 15:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about all the external links you added to the Magic square article, but the ones related to Water retention on mathematical surfaces are not relevant to any of the articles you added it to, even if the article were notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

They were relevant because the water retention problem has been studied extensively on magic square and more recently on random surfaces. I just put that "water retention on mathematical surfaces" page up as a shell -- much more is to be added. In any case, I don't see how this controversy relates to what links are valid for the magic squares page. For example, one of the web links you removed was to the same webpage (Gaspalou's) as already exists there in Reference 14. 68.40.190.29 (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

If it already exists, it shouldn't be added in external links. See WP:ELPOINTS#4 and WP:ELNO#15. And I still don't think it's relevant, but, please discuss on the appropriate talk page if you think it is, and can provide reasons. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, At standard part I was merely trying to include a brief application of this concept, to indicate its significance. Is it worth having a brief summary of infinitesimal definitions of derivative and integral here? Tkuvho (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't think it's appropriate in the "definitions" section, but the infinitesimal derivative (probably written) would fit — well, somewhere — the article is a stub, after all. Perhaps something like, if f is a standard function and h is infinitesimal, and if f′(x) exists, then

${\displaystyle f'(x)=\operatorname {st} \left({\frac {f(x+h)-f(x)}{h}}\right).}$

Your inline version has bad italics and doesn't adequately explain the relationship. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Tkuvho (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

If you could respond to johnston's bizarre comment at my talkpage I would appreciate it. Tkuvho (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Quicklinks to WikiProjects(Wiktionary, WikiNews etc) are needed on Wikipedia and vice-versa, in the header or on the left-margin column. Please consider including these to the existing links for the convenience of users navigation from one project to another. Rockin291 (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Please stop being rude to me It does not matter whether the people of the future don't celebrate the 1000th anniversary or not because it has already been signed so no smart aleck can just say no. Just like a 50th birthday for example Say someone was born on January 1, 1961, then they would be 50 on January 1, 2011, and no one can just say no because he was born that day, so no matter what, they are 50 that day So Stop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.152.50 (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I was a bit surprised when I saw that the readdition of the jersey numbers to 10 (number) was done by someone who has contact with numbers beyond the stadium, and that this is indeed a standard you guys at WP:NUM agreed on. So, I trust your judgment that it is appropriate in that place.

But what about the duplication? As I wrote, I moved the information to Squad_number#Number_10. I hope you agree with me that having article-sized chunks of information duplicated in two articles is not a good solution, and that we should rather decide on one of them.

Now, between the two locations, the Squad number article seems clearly more appropriate to me: This is where I, at least, would look for such information.

In this light, I have considered to post a message at WT:NUM, asking how the decision came about, and whether it could be modified. But seeing that you have been the most active member there, I thought I'd ask you directly first. — Sebastian 08:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The section Squad numbers#Retired numbers would be too long for an article, even if only the info from just major-league US teams were to be included. I think it's better with the individual numbers, or possibly Retired squad numbers 0-9, Retired squad numbers 10-19, etc. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Math and law seem inherently contradictory to me.PumpkinSky talk 21:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I mentioned your leading question to Malleus here. I'm a great believer in behavioural allegations like this being backed up with evidence or retracted, so this is your chance to do one or the other, if you so wish. --John (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"Courtesy note"? is it really? Arthur said in the diff provided that he "wondered"...my guess is, as I think I have seen Arthur Rubin point out before, that he himself had been staying away from editing the 9/11 attacks article due at least in part to Malleus commentary there. (here is one such comment by Arthur) So, if that is indeed the case, then there is one for you. And for the record, Malleus all but drove me away from it and I have 9 FA's, and have started 715 articles...do I count? I know I saw A Quest For Knowledge state he was driven from the article for awhile due to Malleus...How many do you need? I should seek those diffs out...John, I think you need to start worrying about explaining the COI you have for unblocking Malleus (your buddy) and be keenly aware of Coren's comments at the case...the committee is likely to see merit in his statement, outgoing member or not. Furthermore, the previous harassment you and Malleus presented here, the commentary you left on my talkpage and a number of other instances of things that deserve attention are all ready to go as evidence as you are a named party in that case...Arthur isn't.--MONGO 14:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Arthur- I would appreciate your comments/explanation on the latest reversion you made of the rewording in the intro that I did on the Burzynski page. I don't feel the current wording accurately represents what the article that is cited actually states. The current wording makes it sound as if oncologists in general agree that Burzynski's studies as a whole are scientific nonsense, whereas the cited article explains that it's his methods which are considered sloppy, not necessarily the treatment or the results. Also, it only reflects the attitude of three doctors in particular, not oncologists as a group. Thank you, Katie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.177.69 (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, Thanks for your comments. Just a technical remark: the lub property, as indeed all properties, continue to hold in internal set theory, since we are dealing with the usual real line. More specifically, the enrichment is at the level of the syntax (the famous unary predicate "S"), but any statement not involving the predicate is true in ZFC+IST just as it is true in ZFC. Translating this back into Robinson's framework, the lub translates into a lub property for internally bounded internal sets. Tkuvho (talk) 12:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

But the set of infinitesimals is not an internal set. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Oddly, the article does not seem to define what an "internal set" is. Rather it talks about "standard sets". Is an internal set one which is defined by a predicate which does not refer to standard sets? JRSpriggs (talk) 03:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I was responding to Arthur's comment at Talk:Infinitesimal. As far as infinitesimals are concerned, they do not form a set in internal set theory. More immediately, one cannot form a set of all standard elements (attempting to do so is an example of "illicit set formation"). In Robinson's framework, one says that the set of infinitesimals is not an internal set; in Nelson's framework, one holds that it is not a set to begin with. Speaking of which, there should probably be a dictionary between Robinson and Nelson somewhere on wiki. Tkuvho (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

To respond to JRSpriggs: in Nelson's theory there is no such thing as an internal set. So probably the name should be parsed {internal {set theory}} rather than {{internal set} {theory}}. Be that as it may, standard sets are those defined by a predicate which does not exploit the unary predicate "S" (standard). Tkuvho (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Since Internal 'Set theory' disavows the full axiom schema of separation, most of us would not consider it to be a real set theory. Consequently, it is not helpful when doing serious mathematics such as calculus. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure whether it is helpful in doing calculus or not, but internal set theory does satisfy the full axiom schema of separation, as it does all axioms of ZFC. The unary predicate "S" is not a function, therefore the axiom of separation does not apply to it. Tkuvho (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

A further comment: consider the following unary predicate P(x) in NBG: P(x) is true if and only if x is a set. If the axiom of separation were applicable to P, we would obtain a set of all sets. Thus we see that NBG, similarly to IST, contains non-classical predicates to which the axiom of separation is not applicable. This is obviously no reason to dismiss NBG as unserious. Tkuvho (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)