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 2024 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Status

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.

To Do list (from July block)

• Jay David Adkisson see if sources can be found for notability... (I doubt it, also.)
• Dasavathaaram; the movie illustrates/demonstrates what would best be called "coincidence theory", rather than chaos theory or the butterfly effect; that things and people once related to each other will interact again, perhaps in another incarnation. It's a little different than the law of contagion, but perhaps not significantly so.

Request

If you have a few minutes to look over this and ensure i am using reliable sources, thanks mark nutley (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you are, I'm afraid. Referring to the present version of the article:

1. Doesn't seem reliable to me; "About the author" blurbs are not always reviewed, even in reputable publications. Others have disagreed, though.
2. It's an opinion column, although usable to indicate Indur's views. Calling it an "article" is questionable.
3. I lean against that one being a reliable source; CEI's own information should be adequate to indicate that Indur participated, but the description of the film is as biased as CEI's would be.

Refs 4-6 should just be changed to the citation tags, rather than references. The books should be so changed, also, including ISBN's and publishers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate, i have changed a few things, but am unsure what you mean by 4-6 should be cite tags and not refs? If you can take another squiz when you have a moment i`d appreciate it thanks mark nutley (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

23 Enigma should include reference to Lost TV series

What do you mean by "this needs references?" I'm not stating anything that hasn't already been brought up in other Wikipedia pages, as the links show in the posting itself. There are no references apparent for the two films above the posting as well. So I don't understand your need to remove this when I'm simply stating "facts" that have been brought up on numerous other Wikipedia pages. This is not speculation on my part, these are straight from the other pages. I would appreciate this being added back because it took me a good deal of time to put together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesliejas (talk • contribs) 13:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see any references in your post, and 23 is one of the numbers of Lost, so assigning it significance in this article seems questionable. Still, you're probably right. I guess I'll revert my removal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:23 enigma#Lost for more discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Note suggestion

Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse#Full_page_protection. Needs an admin, and your opinion would be valued. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing Web Calcualtors

Last night, you removed multiple external links to web calculators providing useful free services to many users of scientific functions. Many wikipedia articles on topics that have calculational aspects provide links to web calculators. On most of the articles where you removed this information, this was the only calculator link, and web calculators for many of these functions are rare. Please cite an official policy justiifcation, explain your actions in light of these points, or engage in a conversation as to why you believe this information to be inappropriate. Ichbin-dcw (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELNO, probably #4, possibly #8, mostly #13, and, IMHO, #1. We may differ on #1, but #13 is clear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. #8 definitely doesn't apply: no flash or java is used by these calculators, just straight-up DHTML. If #13 is your primary criterion, wouldn't that apply to all web calculators? And yet many wikipedia articles link to related web calculators, and you even left a link to another one on the Bessel article alone. What makes one calculator of Bessel functions "only indirectly related" to Bessel function while another one (which actually calculates fewer of the Bessel functions with a less user-friendly interface) is apparently sufficiently "directly related"? Finally, regarding #4, the hosting site displays no ads and is simply provides links to the free, open-source software package that implements the calculators. The calculators, not the package, are the clear central focus of the target pages. Their purpose is no more primarily promotion than the Wolfram sites to which all special function topics link are primarily promotion for Wolfram software.Ichbin-dcw (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If the same link is in more than one article, it almost certainly doesn't belong. A link to a Bessel function calculator in Bessel functions is plausible; a link to a general special function calculator in multiple articles is not. And I don't think a general web calculator should be linked anywhere, except possibly in subarticles of calculator. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your recognition that web calculators can be relevant. And I certainly do agree that, as a rule of thumb, links from multiple different articles to the same web page should raise suspicion. But will argue that, in cases like this, such links are justified.

Consider how one might design web calculators so as not to violate the rule of thumb. It hardly seems a better user experience to have one web page with a single button for "Calculate Dawson Function" and an entirely seperate web page with another single button for "Calculate DiGamma Function". People are used to functions that are different enough to deserve seperate enclyclopedia articles being collected together in one calculator, and indeed usually appreciate that calculators are built that way. I trust that you will agree that "advanced functions" is a reasonable calculator grouping, and the Meta.Numerics advanced function calculator hasn't been made unusably confusing by collecting 20 of the most common advanced functions together.

Of course, you might agree to my points regarding good calculator design, but then simply conclude that Wikipeida should not link to such well-designed calculators. But that would seem to me to be a case of Cutting off the nose to spite the face. Users appreicate good calculators, and in this case, for many of these advanced functions, holding to such a rule would rule out linking to calculator functionality entirely. I have not found, by simple googling, any other web calculators for digamma, Dawson, Airy, spherical Bessel, Hermite, and several others.

Cases like this one are certainly not unprecedented in Wikipedia. For example, the very useful BlueBit matrix calculator is linked to from the Wikipedia topics on QR Decomposition, LU Decomposition, Eigenvectors, Singular Value Decomposition, Cholesky decomposition, and probably a few others. Please don't go remove those links! I think it entirely appropriate to group "matrix operations" into one calculator, and as a Wikipedia user I value the links to it from each of those articles. (BTW, I have no desire to add links to the Meta.Numerics matrix calculator to those pages; the BlueBit calculator already covers the field admirably.)

The situation with other Meta.Numerics calculators is similiar. For example, I placed external links from the Pearson, Spearmann, and Kendall correlation articles to the same Meta.Numerics calculator because that calculator simultaneously computes these three correlation coefficients for the data set it is given. But I am happy for the moment to limit the conversation to the advanced function situation if that simplifies the discussion.

Thanks for your efforts with me, and with the articles you maintain.Ichbin-dcw (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Any response? Sorry if that was too much of an essay. My basic points are: (1) A web calculator that met your rule would be a piss-poor calculator (e.g. one that could only compute a Dawson function). (2) The bluebit matrix calculator (which is a good and useful calculator) does not meet your rule, and is linked to from many varied topics.Ichbin-dcw (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Absent further discussion, I intend to add some of these back over the next few days. It appears that the sole remaining point of contention between us is around rule #13. I do accept yours as one possible reading of that rule, but I don't see it as following necessarily, and, as I said above, enforcing your reading categorically would be inconsistent with Wikipedia practice and detrimental to users. I will limit the links to articles where no other web calculator link is present.Ichbin-dcw (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that as reasonable. Perhaps you should bring up the issue at WT:MATH. If you want to discuss the wording so that we can come up with a wording we both disagree with, perhaps we can agree on a neutral wording. As I have some "expert" standing in that forum, if we can agree on a neutral wording, in the interest of fairness, I can agree not to comment further on the points about which we agree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here is a proposed wording: "Rubin and Ichbin disagree on the application of WP:ELNO rule #13 to external links to web calculators. The rule states "the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." Rubin contends that this rule requires that Wikipedia articles link only to web calculators with functionality limited essentially to the scope of the linking Wikipedia article. Ichbin contends that the rule does not impose this requirement, and that imposing such a requirement would rule out links to many useful web calculators which implement multiple functions. The links which spawned this disagreement were to a general special functions calculator from specific special function articles and to a general measures of association calculator from the articles on specific measures of association."

I apologize if my draft proposal does not accurately capture your view; that is my best understanding from our conversation up until now. I am very interested in your position on the bluebit calculator links, because that seems to me a clear and concrete example to which our disagreement would apply.Ichbin-dcw (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I would have written: "...where that page of the calculator's web site has functionality limited essentially to the scope of the linking Wikipedia article." Some of the pages I removed may have satisfied that, but not many. If you add, in a separate note, that the wording of the dispute is by agreement, go ahead and post it on WT:MATH, and I'll sign. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I made your suggested change and posted it. Thanks for your engagement.Ichbin-dcw (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A Message

Please see [1] for proof of the existance of "millillion". Black Yoshi (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

2005

What was your logic behind the deletion of the mention of the 2005 UK election on the page 2005? It was just when I saw the mention of the Japanese election and George Bush being inaugurated for a second term I felt that the UK election was of similiar informative value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwhite148 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't check whether the Japanese election had international significance, but Bush should go, also. See WP:RY#Politics and legislation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Partial Permutation & noncommutative logic

Hi there Arthur,

Why did you revert my added red link to partial permutations in Noncommutative logic? I was under the impression that (some) red links are a welcome way of bringing attention to needed articles, and partial permutations were certainly something I wondered what was while reading the summary. I'm putting together a stub article on partial permutations now, does that make the link appropriate?

Though I've been making small changes to Wikipedia for a while, I'm still essentially a newb and would appreciate any advice.

Thanks Dranorter (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If that's really what a partial permutation is, and it's relevant in noncommutative logic, then it's OK. In combinatorics, a "partial permutation" is a 1-1 partial function from (a subset of) U into U, but I don't know what that has to do with noncommutative logic either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's the same concept as yours, although using partial function explicitly seems to show the reasoning for the name better. Still, we would need a source for the relationship. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

PUA

Hey there. I stumbled upon your revert here (I'm the IP to whose rev you reverted). Just a note that I honestly don't see anything wrong with Djadvance's edits. iirc, "PUA" was introduced in The Game as the acronym for "Pickup artist", not for "pickup activity". Oh well, not a big issue. Re-revert if you care, or don't if you don't. --83.135.88.230 (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point. It's the "See also" link that caught my eye, not the PU Activity. As I still don't see why Seduction literature should be a separate article from seduction community, and I don't see any specific reason why Seduction literature is relevant to PUA, other than "PUA" appearing in the titles of some of the books. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Changes to Kent Hovind Page.

I apologize. I am new at trying to edit. Can you tell me what are the acceptable sources to make this page less biased and more factual? Astrohm (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)astrohm

Well, Dr. Dino, himself, is not a source of information about the accuracy of his views, only about the views, themselves. May I suggest that, because of the generally tone of discussion, that you suggest changes on the talk page, rather than making them in the article? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

911 - In Plane Site

Thank you for your message following your removal of my corrections to the 911: In Plane Site Corrections.

After viewing the film several times, and carrying out surrounding research, I came across the Wiki article. The article describes several criticisms of the film supported by no citations or references - as can be seen on the page. This is clear bias.

Please answer the following questions

1. Have you seen the film?

2. The article makes claims of criticisms and counter evidence, yet provides no source for these claims, no references and no citations. Is this not clear uninformed bias?

My edits were to remove these unfounded statements about the film.

I have removed the line "Films such as In Plane Site and Loose Change only refer to the smaller hole on the second floor." Before trying to restore this line, please state publicly where in the film this claim is made.

The film can be viewed here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2361717427531377078# —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorNeutralNoBias (talk • contribs) 11:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The film, itself, is not clear evidence of what it "suggests". If, as you assert, it does not make the disputed claims, the suggestions require a reliable source.

I've reverted some of your changes and tagged others. However, if your assertions are correct, the #Claims section also needs some citations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion here. I haven't suggested the film itself is evidence that it's claims are true. My edits are made to ensure that claims about the film (i.e. claims about the content of the film) are accurate.

With regards to adding citations to the claims section, this should be optional. The article should accurately describe the content of the film. It should not require citations that either prove or disprove its claims.

I am disputing the way in which the word "clear hoax" are used in this sentence: "Some who research the events of 9/11 assert that such mixing of clear hoax claims – i.e., the involvement of pods, missiles, "flashes", and tanker planes – with valid questions about the attack, is a means to discredit what they see as valid questions by association".

This reads as if the article is stating these claims to be a clear hoax. It does not read as if it is reporting the wording used by those making a claim. In actual fact, the use of the words "clear hoax" are used by those that beleive that no aircraft ever hit the Twin Towers. Those with this viewpoint beleive the video footage of the planes was somehow faked. Perhaps using hollywood style effects etc. Therefore they suggest the footage of the planes was a hoax. DoctorNeutralNoBias (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I am stating that the film is not a valid source as to what it suggests, only as to what it states. If, as you say, it suggests without specifically stating the pod claim, then the pods cannot be in the article unless a reliable source reports that as the view of the film. This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that everything in the film is a lie, as reported by all credible sources, including many in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

As for the "clear hoax", I cannot see any way of reading it as other than that the critics believed it to be a clear hoax. If you want to clarify that, it's fine with me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to edit the claims section of this article so that it more accurately describes the questions the film asks. The page first stated: "The films ask a series of leading questions about 9/11 conspiracy theories," I attempted to change this to: "The film examines evidence relating to the events of 11th September 2001, and questions the official explanation of what happened on that day." The aim of the film is to ask questions about the official explanation for the events. It does not ask questions about conspiracy theories. Please explain how my change is incorrect. Also, as you appear to be determined to leave the original statement in place, please tell me one of the questions the films asks about conspiracy theories. In summary, I would like to know how the previous version is more accurate than my revision.

I would also like to note why you are protecting many of articles claims of criticisms, even though no references or citations are supplied. Does this mean you think it is OK for anyone to add claim of criticism to any article without sources? DoctorNeutralNoBias (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Erica Blasberg

I think that is silly that you will not include her in the May 2010 deaths. Your loss... she was a key sports figure... too bad, so sad that your rules have to be this silly. I have been editing on this site for almost 5 years!Jdcrackers (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You haven't read the rules in those 5 years? In addition to to the recent WP:RY guidelines, the comment you just wrong wrote on my talk page wouldn't have worked properly. Ever. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

(Typo correction, but left the original in place for the benefit of those who like to see my misteaks.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

regarding your reverting my edits

I think i made a reasonable contribution, but you didn't even have the courtesy to give a good reason for reverting my edit here. Do you mind explaining yourself please before we engage in needless edit wars? I would like to reinsert this paragraph if you can't give any good objections. Thanks Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems a reasonable start at an addition, but summarizing to one sentence, and adding information as to who and when set the date, might be more interesting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, expanding it into a new section with {{main|Anno Domini}} might be a reasonable approach. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case

I'm hoping this can get things moving in the right direction:

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Race and Intelligence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvcx (talk • contribs) 13:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Arthur. 3 things: 1/ With respect to your involvement/uninvolvement, I have left a note at the filing party's talk. 2/ In your statement, you stated you were willing to comment and become involved - your comments don't appear to suggest you are involved in the content dispute or that you have become involved since the time the request was filed. If I am mistaken, please state so. 3/ Just a reminder to sign comments you make at the Rfarb page so one can follow when you made a particular comment etc. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

MK5384

I realise that you reverted yourself, but I'm still curious as to why you changed my user page.Mk5384 (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I clicked the wrong button. I was trying to revert your edit to 30th century, as there appears to be no source for Longplayer repeating after 1000 years (and it's not clear to me that it should appear in the article if there were a source). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I see. I was using the source that's in the "Longplayer" article itself. If you feel that it doesn't belong, then no big deal. Thanks for the clarification. All the best-Mk5384 (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit...

Mr Rubin,

Respectfully, I object to your having reverted my edit of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The passage in question:

"It advocates that the World Trade Center was destroyed by explosive demolition, a 9/11 conspiracy theory.[6]"

Linking to the article,"The Weekend's TV: The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 – The Third Tower, Sun, BBC2 George Gently, Sun, BBC2"

This article presumes that any "conspiracy theory" must be false from the get-go, making no reference to the detailed scientific analyses or published scientic papers of Mr. Gage and his colleagues. Rather, the Independent article is nasty, provocative and disrespectful to people who have a divergent, rational, scientic opinions about the collapse of the World Trade Center. The article is not suitable as proof of a "conspiracy theory" in this context.

You also restored the term "conspiracy theory". Dictionary.com lists the following definitions of "conspiracy"

1. the act of conspiring. 2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. 3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government. 4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act. 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

Clearly, these apply to the scenarios propounded by both NIST (under the direction of the Federal Government) and to that of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. In both scenarios, two or more people conspire to commit malicious acts in secret, thus rendering the characterisation "conspiracy theory" useless. You cannot differentiate the two theories on this basis and claim objectivity. Science is dispassionate, and Wikipedia should be also.

In the interest of facts, not conjecture,

Be well and thank you for you time.

Rabbitink (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Rabbitink

Regardless of the fact that I believe that the "explosive demolition" theory is unsupported by facts (including the doctored videos), the statements made are supported by the (mainstream media) sources which you also removed. As for "conspiracy theory", we've dealt with that dozens of times in the Talk:Conspiracy theory archives. Suffice it to say that what you think of as a "conspiracy theory" is not necessary the Wikipedia consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"the fact that I believe that the "explosive demolition" theory is unsupported by facts (including the doctored videos)"

Sir, your belief does not constitute proof. Nor do you specify what was "doctored". The buildings falling into their own footprints? The so-called "squibs" projecting from the buildings as they collapse? Some white-hot substance spilling from the building? These visuals are covered in the NIST report and by public statements made by NIST, and are not disputed. So unless you are claiming NIST is also using "doctored videos", I don't see the relevance of your statement. Or was something else "doctored"? Might you have a few conspiracy theories of your own, involving rooms full of academics who gave up their reputations to fake video and falsify scientific data...to what end?

As for mainstream media "source(s)", I removed ONE, and it was an opinion piece in the Independent that gave no scientific basis for its claims and which offered no balance to the matter at hand. Rather, it dismissed without consideration or introspection any alternative ideas about the collapse of WTC7.

"As for "conspiracy theory", we've dealt with that dozens of times in the Talk:Conspiracy theory archives. Suffice it to say that what you think of as a "conspiracy theory" is not necessary the Wikipedia consensus"

Yes, it does suffice, but it settles nothing. I was attempting to persuade you with logic, which has little to do with consensus, be it that of Wikipedia or not. "Consensus" here simply means that a larger group of concerned individuals on Wikipedia agree than those who do not about a specific point. It may whittle down the truth to a point, but not a precise one. Is your consensus impervious to error? It certainly does not change the dictionary definition of "conspiracy", nor the fact that both the government's and the 9/11 Truth movement's accounts both describe one.

That said, I'll drop this for now, simply because I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia, it's markup language or it's methodology to continue this conversation. Again, thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbitink (talk • contribs) 11:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Definitions (such as that of "conspiracy theory") are not facts, but covered by Wikipedia guidelines.

The so-called "detailed scientific analysis" and "scientific papers" aren't. Scientific, that is.

As for the facts:

1. The buildings falling into their own footprints?
   • Then why did the debris from WTC 1 hit WTC 7 (and about 5 other buildings, which weren't completely destroyed)? (In general, real structural engineers know that destroyed buildings generally collapse downward, rather than pivoting on an axis, as most 911 conspiracy theorists seem to believe.)
2. The "squibs"?
   • Explained in the NIST report. I don't recall the precise explantion, but it may have been overpressure caused by the fall of higher floors.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sir,

Wait, what happened to your earlier charges of doctored video? I thought that's what we were discussing. Can we stick to the subjects at hand, please?

"The so-called "detailed scientific analysis" and "scientific papers" aren't. Scientific, that is."

Right, because if you state it, like that, it makes it true, simply because you stated it. I've reviewed the work of Mr. Gage and his associates and it seemed to me to follow the scientific method, which would make it "scientific". Ah, but then, "definitions are not facts", and so science and even the scientific method are completely open to interpretation, like everything else these days. Sweet relativism. I don't think you are "maintaining a neutral, unbiased point of view".

I don't mind that you don't agree. Suit yourself. But your conviction does not make Mr. Gage's work, or that of any scientists in the 9/11 Truth movement, any less scientific. I've read their papers, which seem to me to conform to the scientific method. David Ray Griffin's book on the collapse of building 7 begins with about 50 pages on the meaning and function of the scientific method, and then proceeds to spend the rest of the book quoting scientists to explain his case. They convinced me that the NIST report is deeply flawed, especially in that if fails to explain the collapse of WTC 1&2 after the initiation of collapse, and says very little about how WTC7, which was on the OTHER SIDE of WTC 5, was brought down by debris from the collapse.

"...why did the debris from WTC 1 hit WTC 7 (and about 5 other buildings, which weren't completely destroyed)"

Which debris? Pulverized concrete? Sections of steel? What are you claiming hit these buildings, because NIST doesn't specify and I'm not of the opinion anything hit them other than concrete dust and some burning debris. NIST claims that WTC7 collapsed from fire caused by debris, which is absurd.

"In general, real structural engineers know that destroyed buildings generally collapse downward, rather than pivoting on an axis, as most 911 conspiracy theorists seem to believe."

Collapse downward? Sure. That's how gravity works. But for a building to COMPLETELY (that's the key word) collapse into it's own footprint without controlled demolition is extremely unlikely. If the building pancaked, as claimed by NIST, where were the pancakes (the floors) at the end of the collapse? There should have been a huge pile of them, but there wasn't. Why was the concrete in the building pulverized? Jet fuel and structural failure don't cause concrete to become dust. Why did the squibs occur many floors below the collapsing building, instead of directly under the collapsing head where the point of compression would have occurred?

I don't know the answer to these questions, but I appreciate that they're being asked. I consider Mr. Gage's organization to have an "alternative" theory about the collapse. But this use of "conspiracy theory" as an tool of dismissal isn't civil or logical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbitink (talk • contribs) 20:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As has been pointing out, the debris from WTC 1 and/or 2 damaged, at least the facade of, WTC 7. As the buildings aren't adjacent, "collapsing COMPLETELY into its own footprint" is bogus. However, this, and the rest of the discussion, should be primarily on the talk page of the relevant articles, rather than on yours or mine. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

2012 apocalypticism listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2012 apocalypticism. Since you had some involvement with the 2012 apocalypticism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Greg Bard 17:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Heads Up

You are being discussed here. Cardamon (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Roman Fractions in Anniversaries

Mr Rubins,

I have spent a good part of a day expanding the page on Anniversary particlarly relating to the use of Roman fractions. I am disappointed that you reverted those changes within 30 minutes of me having made them.

Prior to me making edits on this page it had already been marked as original research. This related to discussion already on the page relating to use of multiplication of Latin terms, which another editor was clearly already questioning. While there was some merit in the proposition as already put on the page, it was not pertinent to the use of Roman fractions.

The page as it was, also proposed that pure multiplication of root terms was used for developing all Latin numerical terms - the page gave several examples (which I left intact for comparison) of how other numerals are derived - for example it suggested that 350 was derived in Latin as half of 700 - Semiseptcentennial: semi- (half) x sept(7) x cen(t)- (100) x centennial (350 years). While at face value it seemed a reasonable proposition, to develop other numbers like 925 based on this thesis would require developing Latin terms for half of 1850, or a quarter (half of a half) of 3700!

There are multiple existing sources on Wiki pages that identify how the Romans treated fractions. For example, 350 years is 3-½ centuries or in Latin terms is ½ century on the way between 3 and 4 centuries. For another example, 925 years is a quarter century more than 9 centuries.

A good description of Roman fractions is found on the Roman numerals page. This is supported by Wiki pages on other situtaions where the Romans had to deal with fractions - coins, areas, lengths, weights, etc:

• Dodrans - three-quarters - or more correctly a whole less a quarter.
• Doðrantur http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/do%C3%B0rantur
• Uncia (coin)
• Uncia (length)
• Sestertius (originally semis-tertius) means "2 ½", the coin's original value in asses, and is a combination of semis "half" and tertius "third", that is, "the third half" (0 ½ being the first half and 1 ½ the second half) or "half the third" (two units plus half the third unit, or halfway between the second unit and the third).
• Quartus http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quartus#Latin

Therefore, most of the substantiating references were sourced from within Wikipedia, with multiple links added, and are robust discussions that are highly cross-referenced. I had not used external references as the internal pages were well constructed and extensively cross-referenced.

I also converted the text list to a table to make the alternatives easier to compare and assess. This meant that the derivations were not lost in the Notes sections at the bottom of the page, making critical review easier. I did not remove any of the alternative derivations of previous authors/editors and placed the Roman fraction versions directly alongside the old propositions to enable the reader to compare and form their own opinion. The only proposition that I removed was the discussion made that pure multiplication was the means to implement Latin terms and which had attracted the concern of a past editor. Even then, I did recylcle the previous author's comments and highlighted that the reader just needs to be careful when they are multiplying, adding or subtracting.

I have endeavoured to highlight alternative Latin terms that might also be applicable, and have also indicated where one term was derived based on another documented example. The important issue was highlighting the way that Roman fractions were treated rather than the old discussion suggesting that multiplication was the only appropriate method. Therefore leaving the page as is was giving defective information. Your action in reverting the page to the erroneous information was therefore disappointing as was the suggestion that the information that I added was original research and not referenced. Cruickshanks (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize; I misinterpreted what you did. It makes the original research more obvious, but you didn't add any. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Mr Rubins. I do hope my contribution on the Roman fractions is helpful to the community. I hope other editors with greater skills in Latin will assist in refining the "best" Latin alternative for the derived anniversaries relating to fractions of centuries. Cruickshanks (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

UCS

Damn, I was hoping that such an organization really existed and that I could join it.[2] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You might check the Journal of Irreproducible Results. I don't have the archives of the journal handy, but they may have some references. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

RFAR Race and intelligence

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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/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/Race and intelligence/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINTCRUFT

No, I was addressing the examplefarm tag. Anyone can tag, but does anyone take responsibility and do the thing the tag calls for? Knodeltheory (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and great job on 81 (number), you re-deleted "In mathematics." But you're the mathematician with the Erdos number, so you tell me if 81 really isn't a perfect totient number nor a member of the Mian-Chowla sequence. Knodeltheory (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You've damaged the articles so much, that I find it difficult to tell what you did and that I reverted. I just assumed, due to your incorrect (and WP:POINTy) edit summary, that you were removing information from the articles. What needs to be done is to restore all the data deleted by you and by the last mass remover, and then decide which of of it is suitable. The restoration has to be done manually. In the meantime, I suggest that you cease removing items from the number articles, as you apparently have no idea what the consensus might be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus was that the {{examplefarm}} tags should have been removed, and the data that editor deleted also be restored, and most of his comments were garbage. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of video references at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories

Please see discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Videos_as_references Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll raise your point about whether we should use the YouTube info or original publisher info when citing video. Can it wait a bit until we resolve the procedural issues? My understanding is I was to cite the original data, but I may have misunderstood. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We are not supposed to link to probable copyright violations. I restored the source, but without the YouTube link (and accessdate, which only applies to the link). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

2010

Yes, sorry. I've ceased. Its on talk now, pending responseLihaas (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Generation Alpha

The deletion of Generation Alpha I find rather incorrect. Yes it is a new site and maybe I am not with it when it comes to creation of new pages hence why I would be sure that others would have added to it as they have done on other pages.

Generation Alpha (2010 to 2024) is the new generation from the Generation Z (1995 to 2009) and there should be space for Generation to build upon without editors constantly deleting what "they" believe is shoulod be there.

As far as I know this has not contravened any rules by wiki. --Throttler (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted, by consensus, at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Generation_Α. If you can resolve the problems identified there, then you may create the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You've still haven't answered the question. All what you gave is a bunch of gobble-de-gook. Sorry to sound sarcastic but in English? --Throttler (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Read the link above (note that the "A" is the greek letter Α). I would say that the consensus is that the term "Generation Alpha" was defined and used in only that one source, so the concept is not notable. (The end year is pure speculation, at this point. Not even the originator of the term gave an end year.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Liar

WP:CIVIL

For the record, I lied about what Arthur? All of my contributions to the article originally were entirely neutral, and then some zealot wanted to insert David Duke into the article. Your problem with it is what exactly? Greg Bard 03:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Civil? In politics? And the lies are only on the article talk page, not in the article. I suppose it's possible for someone to believe that special-interest and lobbying groups are more trustworthy than political parties; but not if they've ever actually been involved in politics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

So in other words the Legislative Analyst is a liar, and I used him as a source. That's pretty petty Arthur. You clearly have a disposition, and you lead with it in your discourse.

You seem to, again, be ignoring the fact that the institutional political parties are special-interests, and so therefore you aren't trading up by having them be enshrined forever as the only instruments of social change. So far, having the parties in charge has resulted in a pro-corporate, solid two-party system. I'm not sure what attractive qualities you see in the old system over the new that aren't illusions. Your appeals to the influence of corporations is well meaning, but misses the bigger picture. You have unknowing bought into corporatism. You are so committed to this corporatism that you are willing to let these cleverly disguised corporations become the basic unit of your society.

Politically and morally, the individual is the basic unit of society. The Constitution is a contract between the individual and the government. When I vote, it is one man, one vote. You are so worried about the presidential election and your rights being violated? I am a Decline to State voter, and as such I am a second class citizen under the old system. It used to be that if I wanted to vote for the more moderate candidate in the Republican primary in the race for state Senate, I couldn't also vote for the more liberal candidate in the Democratic primary in the race for state Assembly. That is a violation of my rights directly, because it interferes with my desired vote. The nonpartisan election avoids all of that appropriately.

"...someone to believe that special-interest and lobbying groups are more trustworthy than political parties" Arthur, I trust the people. If you don't then that's a cynical view and you don't construct an elective system around a cynical view. When you oppose 14 you are saying that you know better than 50%+1 of the people, and you are going to impose your system on them for their own good. That is arrogance Arthur. I'm a populist. The populist thing for people like you (Greens, Libertarian and other third party types) to do is go out an get some freaking support. You have no excuse now.

BTW.. in response to my level of involvement in politics: Unlike you I actually A) got elected to an office with over a thousands votes, B) was a campaign manager for two successful campaigns, C) was an pro-student activist in college, even going so far as to camp overnight on campus for a campaign to register voters --for a week at a time --for several years, D) served on numerous boards and commissions, E) authored elective policies. You really shouldn't take digs at my credibility as a matter of habit because you pretty much stepped in that one.

Hey you know what else I've done that you haven't? I'm guessing -- stand up in front of a classroom and teach logic.Greg Bard 07:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Greg Bard 07:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you're insufficiently synical, but it's clear to anyone who has studied politics that Prop 14 takes power from political parties, but gives more power to the monied interests. This includes millionaire candidates, and special interest groups. The people only have power if they can find (or, in most cases, are given) information about the candidates. Prop 14 removes information; the actual party affiliation of the candidate. Only the claimed affiliation is given on the ballot.

I haven't found anyone else, even those who support proposition 14, who think the real purpose is not to make it more difficult to distinguish between the candidates, meaning that the only way an incumbent can be defeated is if the challenger is famous, or spends a lot of money (either their own or that of special interests). It might produce a more "fair" election if none of the candidates is known, but how could that happen?

As for a mathematical analysis, analysis with imperfect information, without being able to make the assumptions that the voters are aware of their best interests, is difficult. If we make the assumptions:

1. The political spectrum is 1-dimensional.
2. Candidates have the same distribution of views as the general public.
3. Politicians believe that they need to move their stated position closer to the center than their actual views (per the stated goals of Prop. 14)
4. Voters will vote for the candidate with a stated position closest to their views.

Then the most extreme candidates will likely win. Of course, none of those assumptions are precisely accurate, but it does make for interesting possibilities, even if the candidates' views were known by the voters.

As for the consequences as to minor parties, my assemblyperson agrees that the effect of Prop 14. is to reduce the effectiveness of political parties. She believes the the primary intent was to eliminate the power of political parties completely (possibly because the Lt. Governor believes he would be opposed by both the Democrats and the Republican Party), but that would give California no status in Presidential elections, so that the patch of specifically not changing the law for the Presidential primaries and elections was put into effect. Careful study of Elections Code section 5100 et seq. shows that section 5100(a) would probably become void in regard the 2014 Gubenatorial elections (affecting ballot status in 2015 and later years), but 5100(b) would protect some of the existing parties, including the major parties. So, it appears I was wrong about "eliminating" political parties from "qualified" status. My best estimate is that, disregarding 5100(a), only the American Independent and Green parties would have qualified for the 2010 primary; the Libertarian and Peace & Freedom parties would have been gone. (The Libertarian party would have only had to increase their registration by 7% in order to make it, which might not be impossible, if the goal were known in advance; in this case, it would be known in advance.) On the other hand, Prop. 14 decreases the benefit of registering as a member of a specific party, so that it might be easier for a party to recruit members.

No, I haven't taught logic in class. I've tutored students in logic (for my mother's class; perhaps they believed I had special access, which I didn't), graded class papers for a logic class (again, my mother's, but not the same year), and published papers in logic (including, to some extent, my Ph.D. thesis), but I've never taught a class in logic. On the other hand, if you espoused the theories you have been presenting on Wikipedia in a mathematical logic class, you would fail. And so, possibly, would your students.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Robin Hood tax: request for help battling lobbyists

Dear Arthur, I'm a long time tax professional and have enhanced several articles. In trying to improve Wiki, I have tagged some articles that are advertisements (e.g., one for a Malay will writing service). I'm getting pushback such tagging on Robin Hood tax, written apparently by and about a group in UK that is lobbying for a tax on financial transactions. The WP article is clear advertising, but with some trimmings (weak pro and con) to make it not quite under the spam guideline. My comments were disputed by User:FeydHuxtable, who seems to be an admin. Am I all wet? Please have a look at the article and leave me your thoughts on my talk page. Thanks.Oldtaxguy (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"The Gore Effect" in Al Gore and the environment

Hi Dr Rubin. I'm trying to keep the Gore effect summary scrupulously neutral so I have updated your last version to read: Gore's global warming presentations in several major cities have been associated with exceptionally severe cold weather, a juxtaposition since dubbed "the Gore Effect." This approach avoids deciding who originally linked the term to the concept and declines to speculate on the motives of all those who have used the term. I appreciate that it is more vanilla than some would prefer, but IMO the summary needs to stay stable because it has become part of the AfD discussion. Is that OK with you? - Pointillist (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

For your notice

Abraham - Amenemhet I

Jacob - Yakubher

Moses - Thuthmose III

David - Psusennes I

Solomon - Siamun

WillBildUnion (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

How dare you

I see you have been getting a lot of negative feedback. Whatever.

But how dare you to place a warning by claiming of edit war? The subject of the matter is relevant and is not disputed. If you keep stalking i'm gonna complain about you. Yes I am gonna complain about you.

I do see that you are a jewish, but that should not, religious beliefs should not be reasons for your admin actions.

Caesarion and son of god is talked here talk:Son of God

WillBildUnion (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a standard warning. You had 3 reverts in Son of God, as did I, but, as an admin, I don't need to be warned before being blocked. You do. And you should still stop adding your bizarre theories to articles about these people without a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not stalking you. Almost all of your edits have been promoting your theories without supplying a single source. Such edits should be reverted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

And ... as you should know, the subject is disputed, and so is its relevance if it were correct. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition lines

You've deleted this section of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article several times now:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=366200459&oldid=366198548
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=366202027&oldid=366201348
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=367734089&oldid=367703856

We've been carrying on a discussion on the article's talk page, but no one seems to have a good reason for excluding this. I've responded point by point to your objections, and to the objections of other editors, but the reasons for deleting these lines seem to be very weak. On you last deletion diff (third one above), your reason for deletion seems to be that there is no reason to mention this in the article. Could you please expand on that on the article's talk page? It's seems obvious that this is relevant to the article. Thanks. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There's still no reason for inclusion. The petition doesn't relate to conspiracy theories. It's not a particularly notable 9/11 Truth organization. Onc sentence mentioning the many petitions (with references for each) might be suitable somewhere. I'm not sure it's in this article, and I'm sure it's not in the section of that article where you insist on inserting it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The petition demands that a new investigation look into the possible use of explosives, so that is the conspiracy theory connection. Let's discuss on article talk page. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverting Input link

Please be more specific than (i) no explanation for your first deletion, and (ii) "still not right" for your second deletion. What's not right about it? Duoduoduo (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As (1) it's not used in "economics" (IMHO), only in manufacturing jargon, and (2) you haven't provided a source, it shouldn't be in the article. The first is my opinion, so if you can provide a source, we can discuss whether that source is "mainstream", and it which fields. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems I was wrong; unless factor of production is considered bogus (in referring to "input"), you are correct. I'll restore it in proper form (one link per line; and your second link says "in micro-economics", so it shouldn't be here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring it. Honestly, anyone who has taken intermediate microeconomics (at least recently enough to remember it!) would know that this is a standard use of "input". I'm an economics professor, and I find it frustrating when non-experts change economics-related things that they don't know about. In this case, you apparently did both of the reversions without even clicking the indicated articles (production function, and factor of production, either of which would have been a valid link). In any event, I appreciate all the good work you do on Wikipedia. In particular, thanks for clueing me in on the Repeating decimal article as a better place for the prime reciprocal properties than Multiplicative inverse. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible explanation for WillBildUnion's behavior

He posted an alternative theory on Jesus's lifetime in this talk page. No sources, has had time to present them. I'm guessing his own OR, and his actions are an attempt to get that idea some more acceptance. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

He finally added some "sources" for his edit to Cleopatra VII. Perhaps further investigation might shed some light on the subject. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I accuse you of...

I accuse you of stalking, vandalizing and terrorizing edits and of trying to dominate Wikipedia.WillBildUnion (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, I've placed a report about WillBildUnion on the Wikiquette boards. Ian.thomson (talk)

Good call

Giving a barnstar to Balloonman for the effort in closing Gore effect. My only regret is that I didn't think of it first:) --SPhilbrickT 11:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The Gore Effect

climatological phenomenon known by the scientific community as the Gore Effect It is in the ref, why have you tagged as not in citation given? mark nutley (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see it there; I've just reverted myself. It's still an editorial, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears that your recent edit in talk has dispatched my last response to Hypocrite. Take a look please? Thanks JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, fixed. The (ec) screen didn't show the change. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

NP. Thanks. Hard to keep up with this maelstrom in "Gore Effect" talk...may a week of reading for some editor's to catch up ;-) JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Sunjata's page

Ok I see that there are complaints about this guys sources and stuff. What I don't understand is if it says he made a speech or wrote an article, and you link to the video of the speech or the site where the article is posted, how is that NOT a reliable source? I mean there he is delivering the speech! Lol There is the article right in front of your eyes! It doesn't get more reliable than that. What am I not understanding? Help please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinghamlet (talk • contribs) 13:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not absolutely sure which edits or sources you're talking about, but....

• Anyone can make a video with an actor "playing" Sunjata. Almost anyone can edit moments of his speeches to produce a coherent video of him saying something completely different (it would be a little bumpy). Hence, a video is only reliable if uploaded by a reliable source or, for some purposes, by Sunjata, himself.
• Similarly for articles. http://www.911blogger.com is, well, a blog. All we know about reference 5 is that "Reprehensor" quoted Sunjata as saying that, and, with some study, I can find that "Daniel Sunjata" wrote reference 6. We don't know whether "Daniel Sunjata" really is Daniel Sunjata, and the blog owner can often edit posts made by submitters. It would be a copyright violation (unless in the submitter's contract with the blog), but, hey, it happens. So, again, we can only use statements from reputable news organizations, or, at least, organizations who have a reputation for not altering statements, if Alex Jones has a reputation for posting his interviews unaltered on his web site, (and that is in question, but just supposing), then the recording could be used to source that Sunjata said something, not that it was accurate. We can also use statements made by Sunjata and posted on his own web site (if we knew what it was). If that web site pointed to the blogger "Daniel Sunjata", we could use reference 6 (and, possibly, by implication, reference 5, as he apparently takes credit for reference 5 in reference 6.) As we all know, you cannot copyright a name, and we would need a pointer from something was was clearly a statement by Daniel Sunjata to "Daniel Sunjata" ( http://911blogger.com/users/daniel-sunjata ) for it to be usable.

Does this answer your question? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

revert

Reverting and setting your clock to 24 hours is exactly what 3RR is about, you appear to have no support at all for such reverting and imo it would be better to accept the changes have consensus by the fact that no one else has any issues with them. Off2riorob (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You should consider in this case discussion first to see if your desired replacement of removed content has any support at all, you also should attempt to explain your exact issues with the content that you have added the content issues template to the whole article, you appear to have as yet not explained your exact issues so as other editors can address them and resolve them and remove the template, if you would clarify and update any issues you presently have on the talkpage , that would be appreciated, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No one other than you seems to believe that there shouldn't be a "See also" section; the only disagreement is as to what should be there. As you also have what seems to me to be a non-mainstream understanding of what tags are for, I don't think I should consider your opinion as indicative of consensus.

Furthermore, I think not having a prominent link to Al Gore and the environment is a clear WP:NPOV violation.

However, now that you've stopped gutting the article (although some of it did need to be removed), I think it reasonable to discuss the issues left. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Report at WP:AN3

Hi. Regarding the AN3 report about you, I have declined it as there are only two reverts which you did not self-revert and two reverts does not make an edit war. Please note that did the technical capacity exist to do so, I would have removed rollback from you for use of it during a content dispute. From a quick glance at your contributions, you have used it several times in the last day on non vandalism reverts [3][4][5]. Wikipedia:Rollback feature says that "administrators who misuse rollback may have their administrator privileges removed." Please take care to make sure that you don't roll back non-vandalism. Thank you, --B (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

reverted Pro se legal

I made what I thought was a constructive edit to the Pro se article. If you didn't like the See also for the "The opticon" article then you should have removed just that part and not revert the whole edit. I hope you don't do this a lot because you're going to discourage good contributors. Slightsmile (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The wiktionary link was also questionable; (the attribution to Johnson may be accurate, but it didn't make Wikiquote), and the quote fails google search; all but one of the eight copies is a Wikipedia mirror. Not your fault, but it seems original research in a previous edit.

Linking probate court was probably good.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no opinion about the attribution to Johnson as I didn't put that text there. I gave aphorism a link because if I was curious for a definition for that word then I assumed other readers would enjoy seeing a wiktionary link. Slightsmile (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged the aphorism/adage/proverb for review. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Smarandache function

See my two posts at the end of the Notability? section of the Discussion page. Jsondow (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. Sorry if there was any implication of bad faith, it wasn't intended. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Changes

Arthur, all of my changes are absolutely correct. This drug is in Phase 3 FDA-approved clinical trials. Phase 2 trials are completed and done, therefore they have shown safety and efficacy. Why are you afraid of the truth being given to the public? I have all the court documents, all of the clincial trial data, and everything to prove it. I provided links to EVERYTHING I posted.

Phase 2 trials are underway in Japan also. Japan has also greenlit Phase 3 trials.

Do we need to sit down and have a face-to face meeting? What city do you live in? I'd love to sit and chat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANP 2010 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to explain yourself Arthur. You need to go point-by-point and explain why you changed perfectly verifiable data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANP 2010 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)

Facts:

1. There is no convincing evidence of efficacy.
2. Phase 2 trials are still ongoing, I believe.

Editing methodology

1. Regardless of whether the treatment is effective, Burzynski and his web site are not reliable sources for matters of fact, only toward evidence of his intent and theories.

I think that's enough for a start. If you can correct your edits to support your statements, go ahead, but don't do it in multiple minor edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Arthur

What is you r problem? If you have a problem with the Dvorit Samid addition, delete that not ALL of it. What is your phone number? We need to have a little chat. I am not letting this or you go. I have al the legal documents to prove that Dr. Dvorit Samid filed dupe patents, (aside from the fact that they are public domain) Even if I took the time to link it all, you would just delete it - WHY? What the f*ck is your problem?