User talk:Arthur Rubin

Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post. This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 28 days are automatically archived to User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2007 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Status

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.

WP:BOLLOCKS

Hi Arthur,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barry Chamish

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

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

also nomination ?

They pop up faster than you nominate them: Category:Mechanical energy gearing (see [1]). --VanBurenen (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Lake

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

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

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

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

Moving articles

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

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

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

In the article's history, you will find that Darwinek created it with the title "Lac de la Gruyère" [2], not "Lake of la Gruyère", "Lake de la Gruyère", "Lake Greyerzer", "GreyerzerLake", etc. Such moves need to be considered carefully, otherwise we will end up with articles like Artificial lake Mooserboden (probably based on de:Stausee Mooserboden). Looking at rare's pagemove log, I doubt this is being done. -- User:Docu

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

Continued reverting at "9/11 Conspiracy Theories"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spelling apologize

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venetian style shoe

Hi Arthur,

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

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

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

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

Userboxes

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

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

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

Collaboration, Good

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

Hey there. I just posted something that deserves your attention at: [3]. Nothing serious, but just wanting to clear up your attack on the Linde (1994) paper. Can you acknowledge your (minor) mistake so that we can move on... DanaUllman^Talk 04:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Venetian style shoe.

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

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

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

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

You are a MAN

From a man that you will recognize...

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

Barnstar

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

Minor edits

Hey there Arthur.

Would you please reivew [[4]] and let me know where you believe this edit [[5]] falls under that "guideline" (don't think it is technically a guideline? Sethie (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Thank you for understanding

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

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

attributing

Hello Arthur Rubin,

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

survivor vs. victim

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

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

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

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

Or this?

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

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

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

Tetration#Approaches to inverse functions

What is WRONG?

y = x^x

inverse is:

x = y^y

y = x^(1/y)

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

…

y = x^(1/x^(1/x^(…)

y = x^(1/x)^(1/x)^(…)

y = x^(1/x)^^∞

y = (1/(1/x)) ^ (1/x)^^∞)

y = 1/(1/x)^(1/x)^^∞)

y = 1/(1/x)^^(∞+1)

y = 1/(1/x)^^ ∞.

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

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

3RR

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

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

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

Block of L33t-Geek

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

Unblock

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

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

---

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

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

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

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

---

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

Second amendment mediation

Just a heads up, a topic which you were involved in[6] is undergoing mediation, Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution, you may want to participate, or add to your watch list, etc.. In any case, I value your opinion on this. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Kent Hovind

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizen of the several states

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

Louis Bleriot 100th 2009

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

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

re:WP:Copyright

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dispute in psychohistory

Hi Arthur,

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

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

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

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

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

—Cesar Tort 20:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Reply to message

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

Decades

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

Time Times (2008-03)

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

Homeopathy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mihaela Mitrache article

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

Golden ratio

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

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

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

Arsenicum album

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking for your comments on the Bilingual Education page

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

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

If you had read the talk page before reverting, you would have figured out that we had reached consensus not to split that infinitive. Would you self-revert, please?

SRA

Hi Arthur,

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

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

Accidental mistake in Homeopathic Arsenicum

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

Labor Day

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

March 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive administrative action.

Hello, Arthur.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment for AN/I page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008

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

Grammar

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

Arbitration

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

Evangelion franchise article

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page.

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

Deletion of cited material from world health organization

Why are you deleting cited material from the world health organization on chiropractics? those edits were newtral and no undue weight. This is a fallacious edit. I will report you to admins if you abuse any more!