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This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.

Thanks

Thanks for the notes on Income tax in the United States. I'll incorporate in next draft. Thanks especially for the tip on CFR references. The ECFR has been driving me nuts since it was introduced this year. It's supposed to be current within 1-2 business days (see its main page for general info and top of each ECFR page for update date). Many of the links to old CFR that had dated editions no longer work. I will go thru looking for edits I've done and clean up cites to remove SIDs, after I test a for a few days to make sure the links are stable. A favor: could you test a few? I'd like to be sure they work from different IP addresses. Two non-new articles with new ECFR links, not yet updated: Corporate tax in the United States, Circular 230. One with SIDs removed: Alternative Minimum Tax I'm a tax guy, not a computer guy, and no spring chicken, so sometimes I feel a bit challenged. Thanks and best wishes, Oldtaxguy (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a spring chicken, either, but removing the sid seems like a good idea. It might be possible to find a published API, although you might have to invoke the FOIA. It might be best to find IP-access-testing tools; I recall seeing some which ran proxying tests through IPs in different countries, but I can't find any at the moment. Perhaps someone here (at Wikipedia) or at DMOZ would know. I'll ask there, when I get my forum time-stamp reset so I can see what I've missed for the past few days. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Continued addition of bullfighting ban to 2012

Das Baz (talk · contribs) added this yet again today - unless you can think of a reason not, I'm going to warn him (not with a template) about edit warring and tell him to take it to the talk page to get consensus before adding it again. Dougweller (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

About your revert

Why nobody notify me until all reverts done? And why you put the talk on an hidden place, instead of the article's talk page? I was completely isolated from the discussion! --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

1. See WP:BRD.
2. WT:MATH is an appropriate place for discussion of problems with math articles, and discussing it on the talk page would have made the reversion of the move more difficult. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you didn't notify anything on the talk page. So only the WikiProject Math members were aware of that. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

matrix polynomial

Just as you said, "matrix polynomial" is more often a polynomial with matrix variables, rather than with matrix coefficients, but

$P=\sum _{n=0}^{p}A(n)x^{n}=A(0)+A(1)x+A(2)x^{2}+\cdots +A(p)x^{p}$

is clearly a polynomial with matrix coefficients, rather than a polynomial with matrix variables! So the article is COMPLETELY "Polynomial with matrix coefficients", rather than "matrix polynomial". --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

A subtle mistake on my part. matrix polynomial should be a separate article, rather than a redirect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Explain yourself on Talk pages, please. No desire for this edit warring behavior.

Explain yourself on Talk pages, please. No desire for this edit warring behavior. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I explained why your edits were completely wrong on the talk pages a number of times. If you want detailed instructions why your repeated edits are inappropriate, and I've failed to comment on the individual talk page, please specify the page on which are not violating WP:BRD, by repeatedly adding content without constructive reasons. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not be insulting with trite comments like "completely wrong" as there are have been arguements for the edits, with logic, arguable maybe, but "completely wrong": no. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Completely wrong, yes. Possibly in good faith, but not in keeping with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Reverting

I notice you've been doing a lot of reverting on Charles G. Koch recently. You may want to cut back a bit so you don't run afoul of 3RR.   Will Beback  talk  01:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I was claiming BLP, but thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Just saying. Do as you think best.   Will Beback  talk  08:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Link to Spearman's Calculator removed

Please justify why you have removed the link that I put up to the Spearman's calculator. 86.160.232.184 (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm generally opposed to listing calculators if not special-purpose, and yours isn't. Still, if it's something like a MathCad sheet, which goes through calculations, explaining what it does, then it might be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a specialist calculator that provides step-by-step workings of how to calculate your correlation coefficient using your own entered data. It cannot be implemented on Wikipedia and it is free to users. I find it is a great resource (for learning) that other Wikipedia users should have the opportunity to access from the external links. Please reinstate this link. 86.160.232.184 (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sierra Club

Hello, I'm editing with a smart phone at the moment which is awkward. I tried to revert POV about coal mining but made an error. Can you review and take appropriate action? I don't want to get into an edit war and this is an ongoing problem. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and I hope you wife's recovery is going well. Cullen328 (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Slap

With regard to the image in the article slap, it would be much appreciated if you discussed its inclusion on the talk page until we come to a consensus, instead of edit-warring to keep it out. Thank you. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 22:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources

I've read WP:PRIMARY, and there is no absolute rule against use of primary sources. The only rule is in adding interpretation not found in primary sources, or in basing entire articles on primary sources. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not correct. A judge's statement in a (similar, in form) case involving Stephen Barrett has been ruled ... "inadmissible". I'll see if I can find the discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

A reference to it is in Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 14#Blatant WP:BLP violation. The most absurd comments about Barrett were in NCAHF#NCAHF v. King Bio, where it was ruled the the details of the judge's statement were not allowed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox album

Regarding your edit to this template, I'm not seeing the lack of concensus that you see, and it was implemented as well as could be in the absence of a more robust solution. Perhaps you could offer some more input at the talk page, because as it is this seems rather like a drive-by revert, which isn't terribly helpful to anyone. Regards. PC78 (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The "consensus" at Wikipedia talk:Article titles suggesting the change should be made was faulty; given that, only if the the change could be made without introducing any significant side-effects should it be made at the project or template level. The minimum would be too have a red-flag warning if two infobox-related templates are in the article, and they do not all specify "yes" or "no" and do not all specify the same thing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with it, but concensus was determined at the RfC and policy was changed accordingly. I'm not sure on what basis you disregard it as "faulty". PC78 (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be agreed now that consensus was not determined by the RfC, but only by the closer. He used an elimination process not supported by the !votes at the RfC. All that might be determined is that there is no consensus for result 1. Whether those who supported 1 might have supported 2A or 2AB is unclear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I see there has been some discussion regarding the outcome of the RfC, but your assessment of the situation seems a little premature IMO. PC78 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That's your prerogative of course, but discussion is still ongoing so far as I can see. PC78 (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it clear that the RfC had no consensus. In fact, I can't find anyone in the discussion other than the closer who thought it did show consensus. Anyway, it is certainly premature to make major changes based on a guideline which is under discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Nanogold

Hi Arthur,

Yes it should since Nanogold is a registered trademark of a private company. The statement that colloidal gold (a general scientific term) is otherwise known as a trademark of a private company is difficult to digest when there is no basis for the statement "otherwise known as." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldnanoparticles (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. If you can provide a web pointer for what the trademark "Nanogold" is actually used for, I'll include that in the colloidal gold article. Otherwise, it becomes difficult to work with, as the article Nanogold redirects, and that redirect would be inappropriate if not mentioned in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

There are 37,900 google hits for "nanogold". It's not likely that all (or even most) of them are your trademark. I think you need to more actively defend the trademark, or it might be lost, like Kleenex. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

reply

here i was talking about non-controversial things. thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Das Baz

I've probably been too directly involved with him to take action, but this is getting to be clearly edit warring to get his entry into various date articles. Dougweller (talk) 04:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Charles G. Koch. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Abductive (reasoning) 21:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

the past is the past

"(Again, I'm not stating that you do presently even contemplate that, although you have done it in the past.) "

I don't know what you're referring to, but I suspect it's about something that happened years ago. I don't really want to know, much less get into defending my actions from who knows when. I'm sure whatever it was I was not sanctioned for anything. I request that we work together constructively and stop remembering and reminding ourselves, much less reminding others, of our disagreements in the past. Okay? --Born2cycle (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you were sanctioned. But let the past be past. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sanctioned? How? Perhaps you have me confused with someone else? --Born2cycle (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"Scientific consensus" header

Sorry for being coy about it - I think you mistakenly picked the wrong section title over at Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change. We are not discussing scientific consensus, but opinions by learned societies (we had a section on consensus in the article with 10 or so statements to the effect, but it was deemed overkill). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

oops. Fixed heading. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Schnirelman density

Hi Arthut,

Why did you undo all the changes I made to Schnirelman density? I had corrected all the many errors in this article. For example, under Schnirelman's Theorem the assertion about Lagrange's theorem is false unless one includes 0 as a square, because otherwise 4 is the smallest number which cam be represented and the density would be 0! Most of the theorems quoted are also false unless at least one the sets contains 0. Since the N for the natural numbers is ambiguous (some people include 0, others do not) it is important to spell it out. The use of the symbol \oplus is inconsistent with the useage in the Wikipedia definition of set addition. There are many other similar problems in the version you have restored and my revisions were designed to remove them. I am not going to go back in and change them all back again, but as it stands this article does the disservice.

Yours sincerely,

Bob Vaughan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvaughan2000 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The changes I noted (not including those, oddly enough) appeared incorrect. I have doubts about \oplus, as well; there is no standard use of the symbol, so we can use a semi-non-standard definition in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Which changes appeared to be incorrect? As for \oplus, it links the reader to the article on sumsets (where, incidentally, the symbol is not used). The definition there says that A+B is simply everything of the form a+b with a in A and b in B. I didn't see any definition in the Schnirelman density article. This article is almost exclusively about something in additive number theory and my experience of working in the area for more than 40 years is that that is the usual definition. If you have another definition in mind it needs to be spelled out in the article and justified. Another example of the kind of problems in this article. Look at the final formula in the section on Waring's problem. R_N^k(n) is an integer, but n^{N/k} is typically irrational. Moreover this is not even a good approximation. The actual volume of the region containing the lattice point is not n^{N/k} but is multiplied by a factor with is a ratio of gamma functions.

Best Wishes, Bob Vaughan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvaughan2000 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained an unwarranted revert...

hi bro... I understand if you have some concerns about my addition. I thought it was meaningful, and decent info. For the "Roman numerals" article. And well-meaning. The point is that it's accurate and good-faith. And according to Wikipedia policy, only actual vandalism or truly inaccurate things, (or totally unrelated things), should be summarily "reverted". Undoing or reverting, per WP recommendation and guidelines, should be done rarely.... And not for good faith accurate edits or additions. I hope we can maybe work something out, or maybe move it or modify my contrib here, instead of just totally removing it. Let me know what you think. And thanks for your attention to this. ResearchRave (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I enjoy reading Asimov, I don't think his books can be considered reliable sources. Perhaps if you can find another source? It contradicts the rest of the article, so it really does require a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

hello...thanks for responding. Well, I see. But are you saying that Asimov (a giant when it came to understanding things like this) was wrong? Or that Roman numerals can't be scrambled that way, though generally won't be? And "decreasing value" is what's normally done? ResearchRave (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you aren't confusing Asimov as the fiction writer (the most well-known aspect), with Asimov as the non-fiction writer. Afaik quite a lot of Asimovs production is reliable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure. On his later books, his reputation allowed his research not to be fact-checked, leading to some embarrassing moments. Not, of course, that he would ever express embarrassment. Earlier books were better-checked by the editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the reference source I have (and that I used on the article) is a NON-fiction work, and deals with numbers and math, the history and the use. It's all fact-based, and very good material. Asimov is not making things up. Hence why I'm a bit confused about the disagreement with the "scrambled order" but "usually in decreasing value order" point, that's on page 9 of his book.

But if the general consensus (especially of Admins and high-ranking Wikipedians) is that Asimov is ok but not totally reliable, as certain issues with him are known, then I will of course respect the consensus and decision. Thanks for your consideration to all this. ResearchRave (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd allow it, if you carefully distinguish it from the references we have for subtractive notation. It's not consistent with those references. Wikipedia articles are not supposted to {{contradict-self}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's not all that fitting and can be confusing, I see. I understand. Well, I have another edit or modification, I'd like to add, but I'd like your take (and permission) first, before I do. It would be under the "Origins" section of the article. It's with the sentence that's already there that says: "it was later identified as the letter D, perhaps as an abbreviation of demi-mille "half-thousand";". What I'd like to elaborate it with (also from Asimov's "Asimov On Numbers" book) is "an alternative symbol for "thousand" looks like this (I), and half of a thousand or "five hundred" is the right half of the symbol, or I), and this may have been converted into D." How's that? To make it a bit clearer what was meant by what's already there in the article "perhaps as an abbreviate of demi-mille". Just a little bit of an elaboration or clarity, with it. I hope it's ok...let me know. Thanks. ResearchRave (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Minor tag?

Hi, could you explain why you reverted my edit to Bilderberg Group, which added content sourced to The Guardian, with the minor tag and no explanation? Are you aware of the guidelines on WP:MINOR? The explanation for reversion should be explained on the talk page - in this response please only explain the why you used the minor tag. II | (t - c) 09:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

As are many of your 9/11 comments, it seemed to be inadquately sourced. The Guardian source appeared to be a blog entry, which has not much more credibility than your personal ruminations. After further investigation, it now appears to be what I normally call a "non-fact" column — a fictional first-person statement using real people. It's legal if it's tagged as non-fact.

However, if the official web site can be traced to a reliable source, that might be allowed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Many of my 9/11 comments? I haven't edited a 9/11 article-related article in over two years as far as I can tell, and the only edit I ever did make was to add an interesting econometric study attributing insider trading to the terrorists. And in the subsequent talk discussion, I never endorsed any conspiracy theory or made any comments even remotely close to endorsing the theory that 9/11 was an inside job. Are you confusing me with someone else? But really, focus on the content, not the contributor, and content comments should go on the article talk page as I indicated. And anyway, I shouldn't have to defend myself - people should not be treated as second-class if they are interested in or believe in 9/11 conspiracies.

As far as Skelton's blog post, it seemed quite reasonable, and The Guardian published it. We have a policy on newspaper blogs at Wikipedia:SPS#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs. Reverts of sourced material should be justified - this is basic wiki etiquette per WP:BRD.

It's disturbing to me that you would completely ignore the guidelines on the WP:MINOR tag just to add a little extra disrespect in your edit. Could you work on addressing the contemptuousness of your internet tone? Wikipedia could be a much more collaborative and nice place if people didn't infectiously try to attack everyone else every time they interact. II | (t - c) 20:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Just read the blog post, will you? It doesn't read like news. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I did indeed read it. We can discuss that on the talk page later. This may sound snide, but I still think you can do better in your tone - is it really polite to ask me if I've read something which I just summarized and cited in an article? I've since done a bit of digging into your background and I see that this is a recurring pattern which has caused a fair amount of drama in the past. Therefore, I've raised a Wikiquette alert (Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Arthur_Rubin) to see if this can stop. Admins are supposed to work to defuse situations, not incite them. II | (t - c) 00:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the merits of the edit, but I will comment on one thing: that's a blatantly incorrect use of rollback. Don't do that again, Arthur. Looie496 (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Your permission

I have another edit or modification, I'd like to add, but I'd like your take (and permission) first, before I do. It would be under the "Origins" section of the article. It's with the sentence that's already there that says: "it was later identified as the letter D, perhaps as an abbreviation of demi-mille "half-thousand";". What I'd like to elaborate it with (also from Asimov's "Asimov On Numbers" book) is "an alternative symbol for "thousand" looks like this (I), and half of a thousand or "five hundred" is the right half of the symbol, or I), and this may have been converted into D." How's that? To make it a bit clearer what was meant by what's already there in the article "perhaps as an abbreviate of demi-mille". Just a little bit of an elaboration or clarity, with it. I hope it's ok...let me know. Thanks. ResearchRave (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks acceptable. I don't think I have a copy of the book, so I can't confirm what he said. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Scnirelman density II

Hi Arthur,

I have added a justification for the changes I tried to make to the Schnirelman density article. I would be grateful for your feedback. Hopefully we can end up with a better article.

Best Wishes, Bob Vaughan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvaughan2000 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

whats wrong with you

Third party reliable source

are you kidding me? go to his website, truthjihad.com and it says his blog is dot blogspot. please stop your vandalism --75.198.78.182 (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said, third party reliable source. We don't know that truthjihad.com is his, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't even know "Kevin Barrett" exists, the way you're going. Is it just me, or are Wikipedians mentally retarded? --75.219.252.62 (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

In Truth Jihad, it lists MUJCA as his website. MUJCA.com has a link (Kevin Barrett's Radio Schedule) and what does it link to? TRUTHJIHAD.COM!!!! Please stop this insanity --75.219.252.62 (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you not aware that Tim the Enchanter identifies as a or the "Manky Scots git" in Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail (film version)?

Reference to the screenplay dialogue by online or other search will be capable of verifying the fact for you— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reingelt (talk • contribs)

Quite. See WP:NOT, and WP:OR, as to why we don't do things like that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You have a new message

You have a new message here. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Eigenvalues of Discrete Fourier transform

"lambda^4 = 1" is the equation that corresponds to the polynomial expression "lambda^4-1", that is essentially the characteristic polynomial when neglecting multiplicity of eigenvalues, especially multiplicity zero, of the matrix of the discrete fourier transform. Why not link accordingly? HenningThielemann (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not the characteristic polynomial, as that has degree the dimension of the matrix. The table allows us to construct the actual characteristic polynomial. I would probably use indicial polynomial, but I don't have a reference for that being used, either. It's not obviously the minimal polynomial, but it is for n > 3, because of the counts in the table. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my arguments. However the disambiguation tag is confusing, because with "characteristic equation" certainly something in the line of the characteristic polynomial was meant. "Characteristic equation" and "characteristic polynomial" are certainly not exact, but unambiguous. You may write instead, that the minimal characteristic polynomial divides "lambda^4-1". —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenningThielemann (talk • contribs) 18:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Arthur,
On ANI you commented "He has shown he is unable or unwilling to adjust his bots to follow consensus, guidelines, and policy. " I would be interested to know why you think this bearing in mind:

1. I have probably submitted (and had approved) more BRFAs than anyone bar Anomie
2. My bots, presumably means SmackBot (I don't believe anyone has taken issue with Femto Bot, my other (unflagged) bot accounts have either never editted, or maybe set their talk page and user page up). Since 28th September SmackBot has been running it's main task on General Fixes only. To me this seemed an excessive gesture which would ensure that people were happy, while I got the myriad minor fixes that have accumulated over 4 years through BRFA. It seems not.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 00:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

Although AWB supports changing the template names and capitalization, there doesn't appear to be consensus for those actions; in fact, there may be consensus against those actions. As with β/Δ and Lightmouse, BFRA approval does not indicate the presence of consensus, or even the absence of a consensus against the changes. Personally, I don't think template redirects should be followed, unless the original template is deprecated, but that's just my opinion; if there was consensus that they should be followed, I'd keep quiet.

However, it appears to be Bot policy that bots should not make changes if only minor changes (such as capitalization of template names) are made, and it appears your bot (and possibly the AWB engine) is incapable of handling those options. I'm afraid that probably means the AWB engine shouldn't be used by a bot, no matter how convenient.

Most recently, your removal of the "All articles with unsourced statements", etc., seems to be against consensus and common sense, projects might be interested in looking at "All mathematics articles with unsourced statements" by taking the intersection of the list of mathematics articles and the category "All articles with unsourced statements"; it would be much more difficult to intersection the list of mathematics articles and the union of "Articles with unsourced statements from Month yyyy" categories.

If I recall correctly, your massive template uniformization last year was also without consensus; three admins (including myself) tried to revert, but we couldn't find the status quo ante.

I think that, as an alternative to a ban, that you need to get VP and WikiProject consensus, in addition to BRFA consensus, for your bot functions. This applies to existing bot functions, as well as new bot functions.

I would rather have you post at ANI, rather than posting on each individual user's talk page.

Please respond when/if you see this. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• AWB has good support for ignoring minor changes, SmackBot in it's full glory probably makes 0.1% to 0.3% minor changes only (and was constantly improving) - and these are pages I will end up editing manually 9 times out of 10 anyway (see my FAQ for the many many reasons this can happen) - which, if each minor changes only edit was the death of a patient on a life support system would be appalling, but is pretty much equivalent to zero on WP.
• You can't take those intersections using "catintersect", doing it with AWB is trivial either way. There are bots that produce these reports for several projects, maybe tools too.
• Removing the cat may have a mistake, but it is something that was discussed and agreed some considerable time ago. There was, however, a bot that used some of them. I supplied the operator with the code to obviate that at the time. If Fram had a problem with the edits, he was well within his rights to revert - BRD. But not, as I recall Bold, revert ANI.
• Last years little difficulty was with an obstreperous editor. I have not heard one word from anyone but him over that issue, and that was as much about his enmity for Dbresser over various category renaming disputes as anything else. Sad but a fact, I chose not bring it up at the time as I didn't believe it was helpful.
• VP consensus. I posted SmackBot's BRFA 35 on VP technical. Only Fram turned up. If you would like me to post notices of all future BRFA's to VP then that's fine. I will post a BRFA to have Femtobot do that. Which WikiProject would you recommend? As to doing it retroactively, that is frankly, a non starter. Anyone is free to bring a problem to BAG at any time, and BRFA's can be revoked. I think people would be justly unhappy if I posted a BRFA to remove surplus colons from redirect pages to VP.
• Posting on ANI. ANI is a feeding frenzy anyway. If I posted these messages there I would get all sorts of ad hominem attacks, and people picking stuff apart - for example in the previous point I said "Only Fram turned up" - someone with what I call "Aha!" syndrome would say "Aha! I looked at the page and editors X, Y and Z were there, why are posting falsehoods on ANI? Clearly Rich is not to be trusted.. etc etc.." but the point is the only substantive edit for a long time was Fram... by the time I have gone through this on significantly many threads not only would it look like I was simply disagreeing with everyone for the sake of it, but the whole thing would become TLDR, and just consigned to the collective memory as another example of "Rich being obstructive". Even here we have gone from one question to a half dozen.

So to sum up, there is nothing in the recent cat changes that couldn't be (and wasn't) reverted - making the whole ANI moot, but this doesn't bear on your statement "He has shown he is unable or unwilling to adjust his bots to follow consensus, guidelines, and policy. " Given what I have said, that you were probably unaware of, especially that I have cut SmackBot's rulebase to the bone, and was making modification even before the previous ANI (relating to what we were discussing), do you still think that I am " unable or unwilling to adjust his bots to follow consensus, guidelines, and policy."? Rich Farmbrough, 04:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

Bullfighting ban in Catalonia in 2012

There are many millions of people around the world who are very much interested in the movement to end the practice of torturing bulls to death. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said, if it were the last place bullfighting were legal, that might be notable. Otherwise, it's just a subnational ban. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Nanogold

Arthur,

Its not my trademark. I don't think any company's trademarks should be used - they are a form of advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldnanoparticles (talk • contribs) 18:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Press For Truth

Not again!!! Arthur Rubin, who the hell are you? Again, you've deleted something that was true and sourced. I'd deleted a statement that was completely unsupported: maybe it is the case that Press For Truth made its first TV appearance in 2007, but in this case support it, source it, reference it, for heaven's sake!!! What you deleted was the well-established, well-supported fact that Press For Truth made its TV debut in the US, in Colorado in 2009! Why would you delete my supported fact to revert back to some dubious statement? It doesn't make sense at all!!! Are you my enemy or what? What do you want from me???????????--Little sawyer (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That is not even potentially a source. What's said during a PBS pledge break cannot be considered reality. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me??? The YouTube video is clear: the broadcasters claim they're the very first in the US to broadcast this film on a US TV. At 00:35 you can read the date, June 4, 2009. Why would this unquestionable source not be a source? Instead, you persist in leaving an unsupported statement (again, which might be true, but then prove it). I don't understand your reasoning, or your attitude. It just doesn't make any sense! Please answer me.--Little sawyer (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

What I said. Things said at a PBS pledge break is not reliable, even if the Youtube video is authenticated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

CfD comment

Please explain I don't understand the feedback you left here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_15#Category:Redirects_from_domain_name. If possible, please elaborate on what you mean. Also--in much more important news--I hope your better half has a swift and thorough recovery. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Sustainable Human Development

Hello Arthur Rubin. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sustainable Human Development, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

New York Times

I see you've been removing/reverting edits that cite a New York Times article.[1] However it seems as if you didn't look at the second page of that article which contains some of the assertions that the anon editor is citing. Could you double check your work?   Will Beback  talk  07:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It does have some; but not enough for AFP or the Koch's, only Koch Industries. It only loosely supports the Tea Party. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, but I see some that appear to support the cited assertions.

• They listened to a presentations on “microtargeting” to identify like-minded voters, as well as a discussion about voter mobilization featuring Tim Phillips of Americans for Prosperity, the political action group founded by the Kochs in 2004, which campaigned against the health care legislation passed in March and is helping Tea Party groups set up get-out-the-vote operations.

That seems to support that the AFP was founded by the Kochs.   Will Beback  talk  07:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. It doesn't say which Kochs. Perhaps in Koch family, rather than the individual Kochs, and a neutral statement in AFP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Revenge Edit warring again User, per [2] Cold Souls? 99.24.250.219 (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINKING. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

IP user unfairly targetted

99.184.231.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) which was just blocked by user:Slakr, has in my estimation been unfairly treated as a vandal. I have evaluated the sum of their edits which were systematically reverted by you, and I have found it necessary to reaffirm all edits done by the IP user as reasoned and appropriate, and as a consequence thereof I have reverted all undoings back to the state following IP user's edits. I encourage you to make a renewed venture into this matter. __meco (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Although the first two edits are merely questionable (Category, yes. Portal, not unless they were already listed in the template), I see no potential justification for the other three. You appear to disagree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do question whether the block was productive, though; the IP is unlikely to be used again for a least 4 weeks, even if the same user were to appear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Mbz just broke the interaction ban. Please block. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at Talk:Climate_change_alarmism#Relevance_of_citation_to_sentence.3F.
Message added SPhilbrickT 12:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I see you removed, but then reverted the removal of a citation. I posted at the talk page to anyone, but as you decided it did belong, wanted to make sure you saw my question.--SPhilbrickT 12:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC) (I see you are reasonably active lately, so I hope this means your wife is recovering nicely from her surgery.)

I see that you have removed the same citation elsewhere; someone used it to support a claim about the tea party movement, but you properly noted it doesn't mention the TPM. The citation probably belongs somewhere, but not where the IP has tried so far.--SPhilbrickT 12:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I missed the second page minor reference to the tea party. So I agree there is a link between Kochs and the TPM. While I wouldn't be surprised if Koch is involved in climate change denial, I don't think this article adequately supports that claim. (Simply being opposed to a cap on greenhouse gases is not prima facie evidence of support for the climate change denial position.) Still, I am more sympathetic to the inclusion of this link in the Politics of global warming (United States) article, than I am in the Climate change alarmism article, where it is badly out of place.--SPhilbrickT 12:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at Talk:Koch Industries.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Best wishes for your wife's recovery from her surgery. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

United States dollar

Hello, I hope your wife is doing better. I opened a discussion on the talk page for this article about the status of all the POV, etc. tags on it. Perhaps you can contribute some background to the discussion. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to get back to you on that. I think most of the tagging is due to the question of whether the specific coins and currency are relevant, the inconsistent inflation information, and the gratuitous references to the gold/silver standard and the Federal Reserve. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. Thank you for the prompt reply. I noticed that I had been distracted before completing my comments and posted an incomplete version. I have since updated it so it makes more sense. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope all is well in your RL and you are able to find some time to participate in the discussion about all the tags on this article. Thanks, Veriss (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Koch is it.

I don't understand your comment for this change: we already have reliable sources linking the Koch brothers to the Tea Party movement. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

To be more specific, the article does mention the Tea Party. It says:

They listened to a presentations on “microtargeting” to identify like-minded voters, as well as a discussion about voter mobilization featuring Tim Phillips of Americans for Prosperity, the political action group founded by the Kochs in 2004, which campaigned against the health care legislation passed in March and is helping Tea Party groups set up get-out-the-vote operations.

See what I mean? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's still a classical fallacy to assert that we have evidence that the TPM supports Prop 23. It may be the case that Koch is using the AFP to support TP groups to support Prop 23, but we don't have evidence of that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, we do. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 07:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

May be a column, rather than news, but I think I'd let that pass. Still, the source which was there didn't support any connection between the TPM and Prop 23. If you want to add a complete sentence supported by the Mercury News article, go ahead. What was there wasn't supported. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Stooge sort

I was unaware of the policy regarding inline math tags; I won't use them in the future. However, I believe my change was still an improvement over the entirely broken state of that equation previously. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Tessarine

The name in the navigational template should be the same as in the main article, if you disagree with the article's name, propose it for move. If you think the topic is not notable, propose the main article for deletion (I doubt it will be deleted since there are multiple sources and it has about 5 times more text than the article about sedenions). I hope you will not do any destructive edits any more.--178.140.84.25 (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I did propose it for rename, and it's not a "number system", even if it's an acceptable article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This is as well number system as quaternions are. The difference is only in the multiplication table. And yes, when you rename, you can change the name in templete.--178.140.84.25 (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

And it seems that you actions completely insane in this case. I suggest you think about it once more. Tessarines are completely analogous to quaternions, the only difference is that in quaternions i^2=j^2=k^2=-1, while in tessarines i^2=k^2=-1 but j^2=+1. That's the difference. Both are examples of hypercomplex numbers. Tessarines are commutative unlike quaternions. If you think quaternions should be there, there s no reason why this system should not.--178.140.84.25 (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC) And note that they already had been there. This is your own revision with tessarines: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Number_systems&oldid=332911297 So do you remove them now just out of combat spirit?--178.140.84.25 (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

As you can see from the history we in the past had Tessarines and other hypercomplex numbers in the template. The problem with them was twofold. First they are obscure: compared to Quaternions, Octonions, even Sedenions

How did you compare their 'obscurity'? Sedenions and Octonion have much smaller articles.--178.140.84.25 (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

they don't fit into modern algrbraic theory

What???? Please tell me into which theory they do not fit? What is 'modern algebraic theory'?--178.140.84.25 (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

and are little used.

Again where is the prrof? There are links to applications.--178.140.84.25 (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

More often other algebraic structures are used, with more developed mathematical theory, such as ℂ ⊕ ℂ for the tessarines.

This is exactly another name for thessarines.--178.140.84.25 (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Second they don't fit into the sequence ℝ ⊂ ℂ ⊂ ℍ ⊂ 𝕆 which is the sequence of division algebras generated by the Cayley–Dickson construction. Also the symbol '𝕋' is not used for the Tessarines anywhere that I can see; certainly not in the article.

I fail to see why they should fit in this sequence to qualify for the navigation template.--178.140.84.25 (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Tessarines are one of an infinite number of hypercomplex number systems. If they were included there would be a strong case for including many more. But as they are little used in modern maths this would simply confuse readers.

Then nominate the article for deletion, and not disrupt the navigation template.--178.140.84.25 (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Better to include the link to hypercomplex numbers, which covers all of them. Users can still find the article from that page, through the many other links to it, and via the search box.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Why a nav template then if you can just give a link to hypercomplex numbers?--178.140.84.25 (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Please reply all in one place, not in fragments, as it's easier for all concerned. See Cayley–Dickson construction for how the reals, complex numbers, quaternions, octonions and sedenions fit into a sequence, and are the only normed division algebras. You have yet to say where the symbol '𝕋' comes from. It is not used in tessarines or used for them in blackboard bold. And ℂ ⊕ ℂ is not just 'another name' for the tessarines but a modern way of representing them: we know far more about algebra than 150 years ago and have been able to unify all these different systems of hypercomplex numbers using consistent rules and notations, so they are less often considered as separate systems, just as examples of e.g. Clifford algebras.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

So why do you remove a link to tessarines? Only because of '𝕋' symbol? Or do you think the temple should only include the systems constructed by Cayley–Dickson process? If you include a 16-dimentional algebra of Sedenions why not then include a 32-dimentional etc? I thjink a link to Cayley–Dickson construction is enough, and anything with more dimentions than 4 not worth inclusion at all.--178.140.84.25 (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

In answer to 'why not 32?' there was such an article, the trigintaduonions, but it was deleted and is now a redirect so 16 is a high as they go. The 8-dimensional octonions are quite notable as you can see from their article. The sedenions rather less so but they are the last and largest of the sequence usually considered. They form a sequence, each one derived from the previous by the Cayley–Dickson construction, and as such consists only of the elements with 1, 2, 4, 8 and 16 dimensions, i.e. the reals, complex numbers, quaternions, octonions and sedenions.

The problem with the tessarines is there are many more like them. The split quaternions, the biquaternions, the split complex numbers, the split-biquaternions, etc. Should all of them be included in the same way, i.e. between the reals and sedenions? No, I don't think so, and so if the others should not be included then neither should tessarines be.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Conflict in Article of Andre Geim, winner of 2010 Nobel Prize

Hi, I am a foreigner and a simple reader of Wikipedia. Thank you very much for your job. Frankly say, Editing article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Geim, is in a wrong way, by colluding of some editors and admins there. Their IDs are: Therexbanner, Gladsmile, Narking, Christopher Connor, RobertMfromLI, NickCT, Beetstra, 7. These Users are trying by reverting correct edits of the article, and doing a sort of anagram and "misusing" information in sources, show Mr. Andre Geim (winner of 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics) is not a Jewish and he has another ethnic. They seem like pure (but a bit hidden)vandalism. All correct RS sources, like:

- http://www.scientific-computing.com/features/feature.php?feature_id=1,

- http://www.russia-ic.com/education_science/science/breakthrough/1176/,

- http://www.forward.com/articles/131944/

- http://www.gazeta.ru/science/2010/10/07_a_3426604.shtml

- http://www.kfki.hu/chemonet/osztaly/kemia/ih.pdf

- http://onnes.ph.man.ac.uk/~geim/pt.html

- http://www.forward.com/articles/131944/

- http://www.russia-ic.com/education_science/science/breakthrough/1176/

- …

clearly show that Mr. Andre Geim is a Jewish (he repeatedly mentioned about his Jewishness, [subject of self-identification]) in ethnical point of view and his family was originated from Germany(he also several times mentioned that his family are German [origin]). Nowadays German is a general word, which could means: Citizenship, Nationality, Origin, residentship, and so on. When Geim is taking about German being of his family, clearly and logically he talks about their origin before emigration to Russia. There is the same situation about Richard Feynman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman. By the way in a reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Andre_Geim_interview_to_Yedioth_Ahronoth,_Oct_15_2010,_p._25.jpg, (that several times misused by above Users) Geim also said a story concerning Jewishness (clearly in religious point of view) of his grandmother, that of course it doesn’t mean that only his grandmother was a Jewish. Now in article as I checked the history of the article, above Users by reverting the correct edits there, try to present and show by their wrong way Mr. Geim an “ethnic” German person. The point is that in any RS sources, Geim hasn’t say that he has such ethnic, and he never used word “ethnic” there. Andre Geim won the Nobel Prize in the beginning of October; unfortunately, right after his winning until now, above Users kept the text of the article in a wrong position. In any case, if you have time, please check this Users carefully. By the way USER:Gladsmile, repeatedly reverted and undid the edits there, without any explanation(even wrong one). Personaly, seems like an extrimist Vandalism. BestAlexander468 (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

the Pentagon

The sources are reliable, insofar we're discussing conspiracy theories, which precisely are NOT mainstream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Little sawyer (talk • contribs) 14:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Pilots for 9/11 Truth are not mainstream, even within the movement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I perfectly agree: conspiracy theories are NEVER mainstream. But I added Rock Creek Free Press, which is a reliable source. I can add more. --Little sawyer (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Environmental migrant

Hi Arthur

Not sure why you are reverting my edits (137.44.8.85) to Ripchip Bot's edits on the 'environmental migrant' wiki entry. The changes I made were subtle but crucial. The 'environmental migrant' concept has no analytical integrity, and it is important for the introduction to the article to note this BEFORE any typologies are then provided.

Please in future leave it as it is. Nothing is certain and stable in terms of our knowledge of the relationship between 'environment' and 'migration', thus this must be flagged in the article at the start.

Regards

Tom Monteath —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.44.8.85 (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

2012 Phenomenon

Hi Arthur,

Hope your wife is getting better faster! My daughter just got her jaw surgery 2 months ago too.

I attempted to submit a 2012 super volcano resource to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon and was disapproved due to biased paragraph. I took that into consideration and made edits to make sure the content did not have any bias in it. Please take a look:

Supervolcanoes were featured in the 2012 (film) capable of creating volcanic eruption force considerably greater than an ordinary volcano. The ash that shoot out to the atmosphere can block light from the sun for 11 years, rendering global climate to drop up to 21 degrees, a phenomenon known as the nuclear winter. Supervolcanoes are subsequently found in many areas of the world, one particularly in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming when Geologists discovered a 90 cm higher elevation in the terrain compared to 1923.

Is the above paragraph still biased? Can you point out the errors or penalties so I can fix them? Please let me know, as I try my best to provide good resources to Wikipedia.

Thanks, Ben