User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2010

Archive 2005

←

Archive 2008

Archive 2009

Archive 2010

Naming the first decade of the 21st Century

Hey Arthur.

Notice you deleted a large block of text on 1 Dec from this section of the 2000's decade page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_(decade)#Names_of_the_decade

Whilst I bow to your wikipedian experience, I wonder if you have not inadvertently lost some quite relevant and interesting detail, leaving something which feels ever so slightly slightly US biased.

As I'm sure you are aware there was some debate, especially in the British and Australian media about how to name the decade and at least in these territories "the noughties" has gained general acceptance. It is used frequently in print and broadcast media. I feel this is useful addition to the page, and certainly our mention of it could be better worded and sourced but it is surely not irrelevant.

Perhaps you would consider re-writing the text you removed, or if you do not have time I would be happy to have another go and place it on the discussion page. Do you think that is a good way to proceed?

best regards,

Mark --Mapmark (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The references then given didn't seem to support the statement that "the noughties" gained general acceptance, only (at best) general use in those particular media, and the text deleted gave equal time to "the naughties". A different reference (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1735921.stm) stated that "the naughties" had achieved general acceptance in the British and Australian "cultural commentary industry", but that it had no acceptance among the British and Australian people.

Some time over the preceding week, some of the more common American uses (with sources) had been deleted; in fact, I don't have references for some of the ones I restored there, but there had been as good references.

Perhaps the Time section should be removed, as well, because that's clearly only their choices, which have not achieved general use.

It doesn't seem to me that the names are yet established. But perhaps you can convince me otherwise. Working it out on the talk page might be best. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

OK Arthur, what you say makes perfect sense and thanks for taking the time to address my thoughts. So yes then I will have a go at redrafting that section with better references & paste it on the discussion page to see what others using that entry think. FYI, we cannot cite individual people in casual conversations of course but I have definitely head the noun used by ordinary members of the public so IMHO it is not just a construct of the media! Plus the word is now in the OED & dictionary.com so (although this doesn't prove common parlance) it is certainly ahead of some of the other examples currently on the page. Regards, Mark--Mapmark (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I will be returning a number of the "Alternate names" to this article. I believe that by virtue of the section "Names of the Decade", and its introduction "Unlike previous decades, the 2000s never attained a universally accepted name in the English-speaking world." that these are ALL RELEVANT. Any removal of them following their return will see a request for consensus, and further removal will constitute vandalism unless an appropriate argument is made.

ATTN: Arthur Rubin - these citations are all relevant to show "usage" in the media and are valid.

Artx (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

network marketing

Since when do there have to be "non-industry" sources to distinguish between industry-specific terms? That doesn't even make sense. That's like saying: "Only medical textbooks differentiate between these two medical terms...no sources outside the medical industry can be found that do so. Therefore these terms must be considered identical." How is it that texts specifically talking about a subject are not sufficient to provide a basis for differentiation between terms...and further, we have to find texts that carry no weight on the subject? And somehow those are the valid sources? --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There do have to be non-industry sources to distinguish between terms used to refer to the industry. We don't let anyone define their own terms unless generally accepted. Most medical terms are generally accepted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

3RR

It takes two to edit war. How come I was the only one given the warning? And you're making exactly the same reverts!. -Regancy42 (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

DriveMySol is making different idiotic edits each time, so I don't think he's violated 3RR. You can warn him if you like, but I don't think it will help, and I don't think he can be blocked for edit warring, only for making random inappropriate edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

List of school pranks

I'm assuming you're RC patroling and didn't realize what's going on here. I have a troll/stalker reverting my edits and outing me, and (s)he's currently the subject of a thread at WP:AN/I. I understand what it's like to RC patrol and not realize what's going on as I do it myself quite often, but please refrain from further support of the troll's malicious behavior. Thanks for helping defending the encyclopedia. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That particular edit is inappropriate, regardless of whether the troll is reverting it. I'd support removing "workplace" from that section even if a banned user were also supporting it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate or inaccurate? Some of these pranks (some, not all) occur in the workplace, but in favor of not causeing a big dispute, I'll let it go. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If it were about pranks in general, rather than school pranks, I'd let it go. But that's the title and apparent purpose of the article for some time. list of pranks might be more interesting, leading to "traditional" pranks among actors and at conventional workplaces, as well as at school.

Here's an idea: lets remove the entire line. All I did was add workplaces to a list that was already in place; there was already a line indicating that the pranks occur in barracks and between siblings. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I can go with that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I started a thread at the article's talk page. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Year 2010s Edit

Arthur you have commented on my edit of the 2010s page as being unoriginal content, however the current content contains misinformation that cannot possibly have been cited from anywhere. The 2010s decade does not start on 1 January 2010, it starts on 1 January 2011. See these pages for information:

http://www.tondering.dk/claus/cal/node3.html http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/year-history.html

(search for year zero on both pages).

The current edit is NOT TRUE. I have added a discussion topic to the page to explore this issue, but in the meantime this page is spreading misinformation. Clearly you have a position of authority on wikipedia. Please can you use it to remove this misinformation?

Thank you in advance, zebulon99 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebulon99 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Your references are both unrealiable (that is, not WP:RS), and do not support your decade assertion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Programming of Human History?

This is in good faith, and I hope you see it as an intelligent request to have some one or perhaps more people co-author something on the peculiar nature of base-ten. I hold some of the details, perhaps most or all, but disentangling mathematics from personal narrative is something with which I am struggling. Just a short while ago, I almost e-mailed another Erdos #1, and then I quickly ran across you through no particular method that would have been expected to produce this result. I have more justification for being superstitious than anyone else does: My three closest same-generation relatives, cousins between whom I am the sole link, were born on the 19th, 19th and 20th anniversaries of the first three man-made nuclear explosions. This (late-learned) fact, my own self-aware egocentricity, and the sense that my own DOB (6 July 1964) might be something (it is, by removing a factor of four from each of 7061964 and 6071964) stimulated the calculation of (365+1/4)^4 (four years ago). This and the rest discovered is pretty much all elementary (as far as I can see), and it may not appeal to you, but please let me know if you're interested in helping me organize the material and perhaps finding something deeper (in mathematical terms) than what I already have. I'm looking to write a shattering article on the design hypothesis with little in it other than very basic mathematics for a science journal. My published work is very limited (two solutions and one problem in the American Mathematical Monthly). You can get another big coincidence and my e-mail address at OEIS by looking up 3360633, if you would continue with communications by that means.Julzes (talk) 11:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Not meaning to clog up your space, and assuming neither that you would or would not respond with or without my saying more, I really should sell myself more clearly. Briefly, my history on the subject of Design prior to what I've learned would have to be characterized as angry-at-all-the-stupidity atheist (with mild and mostly liberal Christian family influences and varieties of friends). Mathematically, I was one of four people nationally to achieve National Honor Role status from the AHSME all four years from 1979 through 1982 and I placed 11th on the USAMO in 1982 despite being pretty deep into an approaching need for psychiatric hospitalization. My family was broken in early childhood and there were no attended-to signs I would be prodigious mathematically until I was allowed to skip from Algebra 1 to Calculus by a quick self-study program. That's enough to guage the person; to guage the specifics of the subject, please do write. It would go better with your involvement, in my opinion.Julzes (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As a joke, because I reverted him (Arthur Rubin), I've got an Erdos #2. Just joking on this one. But anyway, this is not the place to ask for this sort of thing. 4 T C 11:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I edited the title of this section from the obnoxious "I want to be an Erdos #2" to the real topic. If 4 is correct, I apologize for my ignorance.Julzes (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The First Decade of the 21 Century Ends 12/31/2010!

I will not stop. It is interesting that it is being called the 2010 decade. Do you think the first decade by your calculations was the 00 decade and went from 01/01/00 to 12/31/09? I believe we agree that there are 10 years in a decade. Assuming we can agree that the first day of the first year of the CE was 01/01/01, simple math shows that the first day of the First Decade of the Third Millennium was 01/01/2001! Now the media and a lot of people may have wanted it to be 01/01/2000, but that does not make it so.

I suppose if a person wanted to take an arbitrary 10 year period and call it for example the 2005-2014 decade that would be ok. This article is infering that the 21st Century began on 01/01/2000, that is absolutely false!

Additionally I went back through the history of this page and I see numerous discussions where several people agree that "technically" the years ending in 00 are the actual last year of their respective time periods. The main responses seem to be along the lines that most people believe they end in 09 so they should end in 09.

Another point I want to add that if the 12/31/09 date is correct then the article stating that 2011 is the 11th year of the millennium would have to be incorrect. If it is correct, which it is, the eleventh year of the millennium has to be the first year of the second decade of the millennium. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Based on some of the comments I have seen if enough people agree that 1+1=3, then that is what is should say on Wiki. That is not my understanding of what Wikipedia is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsoltz (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am not going to get into the specifics of this issue, as I was just visiting this talk page for something else, but I will just point out that Wikipedia isn't about truth but about verifiability. I'm not going to look into this, as I have other things I'd rather be doing, but you say "The main responses seem to be along the lines that most people believe they end in 09 so they should end in 09" - if the verifiable sources say this (rather than the alternative), then Wikipedia should reflect this. If fewer sources say the alternative, then this can be mentioned as an alternative viewpoint, but not instead of the common viewpoint. I just thought I'd offer my 0.02! Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

the new millennium started in 2001. http://wwp.greenwich2000.com/

Here is the citation you wanted.

Greenwich England is where East meets West at the Greenwich Meridian (0° Longitude); World Time is set Greenwich Mean Time. Remember the new millennium started in 2001.

http://wwp.greenwich2000.com/

These are the official date/time keepers for the World. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsoltz (talk • contribs) 09:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. In the meantime, I would wish you a Happy New Year! Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Because of that thread, I have blacklisted you from using Twinkle due to your abuse of it's functions. Viridae^Talk 04:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that I posted a comment on ANI about one of the examples given not being vandalism. *shrug* Ravensfire (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that it really matters - Arthur, please don't label any edits vandalism if they are not, in fact, vandalism. As you are an admin I would have thought you knew better! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

Hello, Arthur Rubin/Archive 2010! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 00:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hope your vacation rocked, and you are refreshed and renewed! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Prime-counting function

A recent edit to Prime-counting function showed what appears to be WP:COI: User:Werner D. Sand claiming a conjecture as his own. But aside from authorship, I'm really not sure why we have this conjecture on the page at all. What do you think?

CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement

A user NimbusWeb, who appears to be a newcomer to the way Wikipedia works, has made a request on the above enforcement page concerning you. I've responded asking him to follow the usual dispute resolution path. Being a newcomer he doesn't seem to have communicated directly with you, so I thought it would be a good idea to let you know what's happening. It's nothing to worry about, just a guy who hasn't yet learned the ropes. --TS 11:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

In relation to your edits on biosequestration carbon tax and Kyoto Protocol. Please be aware of WP:3RR and WP:REVERT. You might also wish to consider more carefully the terms of the article probation.NimbusWeb (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As you've reverted 4 times in the last 24 hours in biosequestration, the last two after being warned, I question your sincerity. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Decade 0

I noted your revert on zero year. Regarding the application of zero concept to decades, please see the discussion here. It is addressed as a matter of fact in the counting of years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Year_zero#Chronologists. Do you have a source that refutes the math and says that a century is 10 decades +1 the last year of the preceding decade from the preceding century and -1 one year of the last decade? or that Decades start one year after the Century? I would be interested in see that (that's not sarcasm, I would seriously like to see somewhere this has been published). — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 20:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

We would need a reference that someone uses ordinal decades, for it to be relevant to "decades". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, it constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Religious Movement V. religious Group

please dont edit war, Discuss here

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Children of God (religious group) appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, again. Cult is the term used, and the term from the reference. Removing the term which is commonly used and referenced is a violation of NPOV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

quick note

[1] - you put one too many tildes in your signature here, I believe. Might want to fix that :) henrik•talk 20:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

wrongly named year article?

Perhaps I'm dizzy: is there something wrong here: Jason_Sebastian_Russo. Tony (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Restored to previous state (as of 2 days ago), external links added, unreferenced bio tag removed. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the self reversion

of this... I must say that's one of the dafter suggestions for a block I've seen in a while, though. ++Lar: t/c 16:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Likebox

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requesting_topic_ban_or_extended_block_of_User:Likebox. Pcap ping 11:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, which will delete the vast majority of 50,000 articles created by 17,400 editors, mostly new editors. I am quite surprised to see your stances on these issues, maybe I have you mixed up with someone else :). Ikip 01:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You missed my subsidiary comments. ArbCom seems to have (improperly) ruled that the word "contentious" in WP:BLP is inoperative. Given that, I see no choice but to recommend that WP:BLP violations, now defined to include unsourced BLPs, be removed from Wikipedia. I recommend stubbing, rather than deletion, but deletion then stubbing would be acceptable, for the most part. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

Click here to automatically add this project to your watchlist

Hi Arthur Rubin/Archive 2010, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(refactored) Ikip 04:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks! Nsaa (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised

You ask for talk-page interaction - but you haven't made any (since the first)... You yourself has stated on talk, that you have no idea about the weight of this issue.... Are you aware that there is only one reliable source on this? Have you checked the references? Have you also noticed that despite mentions on talk about McKitrick and Coleman, these two aren't stating support? Do please explain how you can determine WP:WEIGHT on this basis on talk. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Weight is a difficult matter. All I can say is that it's obvious to a geostatistician (and fairly clear to any competent statistician) that losing a large number of stations, including those at the edge of the station set, will effect the resulting global averages. If someone would run models of average earth temperature based only on the stations that remained in place, and it showed the same amount of (average) warming, that would discredit the new study. Although the analysis hasn't yet been published in (non-open-source) peer-reviewed publications, it is sufficient to cast scientific doubt on the IPCC studies if the GW advocates cannot verify it isn't a significant effect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It may be "obvious to a geostatistician" - especially if he accepts the premises (the stations were removed because they showed cooling), if he accepts the McKitrick graph blindly (forgets to wonder where is it exactly that temperatures were almost flat until 1990 and then suddenly increased 1 degree within a short period). Or because he hadn't looked into what the explanation was [2] (go halfway down) - correction applied here[3]

But strangely enough your argument is about WP:TRUTH not about WP:WEIGHT, which is what this is about. If the controversy page only should contain real science arguments, then a lot of the page should be removed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the stations were removed because they show cooling; I'm saying that if the stations on the border of the covered region are among the coolest, then the area outside the covered region would be reported as warming.

At this point, if the comment on the removal of the stations causing apparent warming is removed, so should the IPCC statements about that warming, as being less plausible. Even unreliable sources can discredit apparently reliable sources, for the purpose of deciding WP:WEIGHT. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I consider the chron.com comment that losing the colder stations would not necessarily increase the global temperature absurd. It would be reasonable for modeling the annual change in temperature, and possibly plotting/estimating the difference in global temperature from a reference year, but not for plotting/estimating the actual global temperature, which is how most of the plots provided in the media are done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind my banter, I'd always assumed the uptick in temperatures was due to the atlantic multidecadal oscillation going into its warm phase in the late 90's (chart). The satellite records on wikipedia show a trend line going straight up (chart - green line is the satellite), but in reality it looks pretty steady until the AMO punches into high gear, and then it warms up a bunch in 98 and stays steady. On a minor side note, the pacific decadal oscillation went into its warm phase in the late 70's, hard to tell its impact since there are so many problems with the surface station record (dropped stations, not adjusting for UHI, etc, etc) and this was before the satellites were measuring it - the PDO is now entering its cooling phase and so we should expect cooler weather for the next 30 years. All in all, the satellite records don't show a steady increase in temperature due to steadily increasing CO2. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Creation myth

Per this edit-

We are (god willing) wrapping up a debate on the term Creation Myth at Talk:Creation according to Genesis. I'd just like to point out an excerpt from WP:RNPOV:

"Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings."

Creation Myth, in its formal meaning (the only one used), is not inherently biased, and makes no judgment of truth or falsehood. As it is supported by the vast majority of scholarly sources, there is no bias in using it. As one editor put it, it would be FAR more biased to use the 'kid gloves' when talking about the christian creation myth, but call OTHER creation myths by that term. --King Öomie 15:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. If the guideline has been stable, please go ahead and revert. No offense intended, but in a couple of discussions, an editor has changed a guideline and then acted according to the changed guideline, without discussion at the guideline's talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Although it might be cleaner to just refer to Creation according to Genesis, and leave myth/account/story out entirely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, your suggestion is good. And as far as I can tell, that policy has been pretty stable for a number of months, though I understand your concern. I've seen that myself. --King Öomie 19:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Robert Nebřenský

Hello Arthur. I think that the {{notability|Bio}} tag is no longer needed there, as the article contains various references proving notability of the subject. I'm quite familiar with the Czech culture and I have some knowledge of Wikipedia notability requirements. Nebřenský meets them as the leader of a notable band Vltava, member of an important theatre ensemble Sklep, and actor in multiple notable films. All of the subjects are known mainly in the Czech context, but they qualify also for the English Wikipedia. If your concerns aren't resolved to your satisfaction (I'm talking about the notability of mentioned red links), please ask at the relevant forum - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Czech Republic. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to tell whether a red-link is notable; even if it's in cz.wikipedia, the notability standards may be different. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm presenting only my own judgement and experience. The notability standards and mainly referencing of Czech Wikipedia are sometimes very strange. I'll add both the important red links to the red pond of missing Czech topics. Sorry for bothering you with the tag, it is not so important. Thanks for your answer. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

List of School Pranks/Flat Tire

Thank you for reverting (i.e deleting) my additions to this section. Less information, and less clarity, are certainly better. :-| Have fun with your wikitoy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.95.54 (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing clear, and little accurate, about your addition. The "agreement" allowing the article not to be deleted as complete violation of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day is the requirement that any information be taken from a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

extending incompleteness theory to systems other than mathematical ones.

Hi Arthur, I'm a new contributor still feeling my way through the applications, processes and protocols.

What I'm trying to do right now is to start a brief, cordial conversation with you about extending Godel's incompleteness theorem to formal systems other than those that are mathematically based. If this talk page is the incorrect forum / mechanism / way to initiate the conversation, please forgive my ignorance. And please let me know what would be more appropriate.

Re extending incompleteness to language, as you know I wrote a short paragraph for inclusion on the Godel page, which you subsequently deleted. I have no problem with that. But I do take this opportunity to put the case in slightly more detail, as follows:

The major difference between a formal system eg arithmetic vs language is that the former, being a system based on mathematics, involves statements that can be evaluated as true or false against the axioms comprising the foundation of the system. If arithmetic is discreet, language is continuous. If arithmetic is a particle, language is a wave. Arithmetic digital, language analogue.

Obviously, language statements can be evaluated as true or false: eg "the Earth revolves around the moon" is a false statement. But the falsity or otherwise of that particular statement is decided by virtue of reference to data and/or axioms that are not part of language itself, but rather are part of such formal systems as astronomy and physics. So, in a trivial way, proving the consistency and/or completeness and/or truth of language statements does indeed involve stepping outside of the system of language. But, as I say, that is a trivial example, and not really what I have in mind.

So what then is the equivalent in language for "true", "false", "consistent" "complete" "axiom" etc? It is MEANING. In the context of language, MEANING is the proxy for those characteristics (eg the characteristic of being built upon axioms) that in mathematically based formal systems enable incompleteness theory validly to be applied to them. It is only by stepping outside of language into a metasystem (at a higher level of abstraction) that the meaning of words can definitively be assessed for consistency and completeness, clarity and unambiguity.

Semiotics alerts us to the issues arising from the relationships between the SIGN, the SIGNIFIER, and the thing that is SIGNIFIED; between the symbol and the thing it symbolises; and most of all, between the sign, the thing that is signified, and the NAME of the thing. At its crudest and simplest, the issue relates to the difference between the attributes of the thing, the name of the thing, the word for the thing, and the thing itself.

Language is a labelling system, and words are labels. Sometimes people use a different label than has been used previously to describe the same thing, or a different label to that which another person applies to the same thing. It's called "disagreement" but actually it is just different styles of labelling. To paraphrase Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's "through the looking glass", a word means whatever the utterer of the word believes the word to mean, no more and no less. And that is an issue of semantics that cannot be resolved within language.

In English, "dog" is the word for a creature referred to (signified as) "Canis lupus familiaris". But say that I, for whatever reason, use the word "ooga-booga" to refer to Canis lupus familiaris. I'm not wrong. My statement is not wrong. The word "dog" itself came into usage through a similar process (ie the process whereby meaning is allocated to "words" in the first place.) My doggish statement may not be wrong or incorrect as such, but it certainly would preclude my having a meaningful conversation with another person or persons about Canis lupus familiaris.

Better example: consider the following 6 statements: 1. "Neptune is the god of the sea" vs 2. "Poseidon is the god of the sea" vs 3. "There is only one God, named Jehovah" vs 4. "...named Allah" vs 5. "...named Ahura Mazda" vs 6. "there is no God or gods, only matter and energy; fermions and bosons."

In 1 vs 2, there is disagreement about the NAME of the thing, and agreement about the ATTRIBUTE of the thing (= being-a-god-of-the-sea).

Statements 3, 4 and 5 disagree amongst themselves as to the name of the thing. And each of 3, 4, and 5 disagrees with both 1 and 2 about the ATTRIBUTE of the thing (= deity-is- one vs deity-is-many").

The best example arises from a comparison of 3 and 6, as follows:

Statement 3 is the Judeo-Christian monotheistic proposition. Statement 6 is the atheistic position, (ideally adopted by people who understand physics!). The attributes of the thing in the Judeo-Christian monotheistic proposition are: Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omnipresence*. To put it in plain words, the people embracing 3 believe that the thing for which the word is "god" in the English language is everywhere, all-knowing and all-powerful. And the people embracing 6 believe there is a thing for which the word in the language of English is "Universe", and that there is nothing outside of the Universe (therefore the Universe is omnipresent). And that there is no knowledge that is known outside the Universe; all knowledge is known inside the Universe (therefore the Universe is all-knowing). And that there are forces and powers within the Universe (eg Gravity, Electromagnetism) but there are no forces or powers outside of the Universe (therefore the Universe is omnipotent).

So, in the example above, there is agreeement between the atheist and the believer about the attributes of the thing (the three omni...'s). However, there is disagreement about the word (label) to be used for (to be applied to) the thing (ie "God" vs "the Universe"). And there is disagreement about the name of thing: For the believer, the name of the thing is "Jehovah". For the atheist, the thing has no name, but if the thing had to have a name, "ooga booga" would be just as valid as "Jehovah" or "Allah" or "Brahman" or "Fred Bloggs". There's no correctness or incorrectness in assigning names. Nor is there such a thing as correctness or incorrectness in allocating words. The words in English "help" and "assist" are different in spelling and origin, but both may validly be attached to the same thing. And let's not get into examples involving multiple different languages -- that's too complex for my simple brain. (It's language's "hard" problem.)

Fairly recently the English word "cougar" has been adopted to refer to an older woman seeking a relationship with a younger man. Previously, the only valid thing to which the word "cougar" could validly be attached was a large, tawny cat, Felis concolor. Same word, two different meanings, of which the latter has recently been invented by a language user or users.

In all of the above examples, there can be no valid endorsement or rejection of MEANING inside the formal system of language. In order to validate the meaning of words, one has to step outside of language. Within language as a system, there can never be a "true" or "false" meaning: It's the prerogative of the language user to choose a word (and/or invent a new word) to apply to a thing. The choices that language users make often result in poor communication with other language users. New words are constantly being invented, and it can take a while before the use of the new word is known, understood and accepted broadly by language users in general. And new meanings are constantly being invented for existing words, and it can take a while before the new meaning is accepted as being a valid application of the word (label).

The incompleteness and/or inconsistency of the meanings of words cannot, are not, and never will be resolved within the system of language itself. In language, "meaning" is the equivalent of "correctness" in Arithmetic.

What do you think?

Cheers, Nevestisme (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It may be that there is something that can be said about that concept, but I don't see a plausible way of adapting or extending the incompleteness theorem to the concept. If there were a reliable source for the concept, you might include it, no matter how implausible it might be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Biographies of Living persons solution?: Projectification

As someone who commented on the BLP workshop I created, please review this proposal to see if it is something that the community would support.

Harsh constructive criticism is very welcome!

Better to figure out the potential objections now. I am looking to remedy any potential objections by the community.

Thanks. Okip (formerly Ikip) 03:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Polytopes

Simple reason why I'm not willing to create the redirects: they're already there! 4 T C 06:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Why didn't you put them in the template, then. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Baffled

Just in case you're wondering, my response is not an attempt at playing dumb; I really can't fathom out quite what I've done to provoke your wrath, or how I've misinterpreted or misrepresented you. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

New type of decade article proposed

I have proposed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years that we have two kinds of decade articles - one in which the events of a decade are listed ("List of events of the 1940s"), and another shorter decade that takes a top-down approach and explain the main themes and character of the decade ("1940s"). Please share with the community your views or suggestions.Kransky (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Homeopathic math

Hi Arthur. Another admin has added a tag here and deserves an answer. (Frankly I find it mildly disruptive that they didn't ask on the talk page first, but that's just my opinion.) I don't know who added that content, and the enormity of the numbers resulting from homeopathic dilutions does astound me, so I really don't know the answer. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you do something about this? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to stay out of it. The numbers seem about right, but it is WP:OR unless there's a specific, reliable source, for the analysis. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Then the solution is to find a source. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Electron Configurations

Arthur, please see my response to your comment on Electron Configuration Talk page.Drova (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

extending incompleteness theory to language

Hi Arthur, re our previous correspondence, I can't source the concept --- other than to say it's mine, and published on my blog. This is to ask a favor of you: to review the blog post from a technical point of view, especially the key concepts including "incompleteness" and "inconsistency". If anyone can spot the weaknesses and/or inaccuracies in the blog post, it would be you.

I understand you may not have the time or inclination, so no hard feelings if you can't or won't do it. But I would be extremely appreciative if you could. Even just a 5 minute scan would be great. It's relatively short.

Anyway, if you could, that would be great---you could leave your comments on the blog post itself.

Here's the link: http://cosmic-rapture.blogspot.com/2010/02/birth-of-ooga-booga-what-does-it-really.html

regards

Nevestisme (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ken_Salazar

i added this to the wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ken_Salazar&oldid=343568530

i have not done this before, so i will most likely make a number of mistakes.

my question is:

can i edit an article to relay information about a individual like ken salazar if his position in the government includes a decision made under his administation to allow for the killing of wolves (for whatever reason) ... ?

for example, what i wrote is generalized, but none the less true.

if i had written something like 'As secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar signed an order on Feb 20, 2010 that now allows for the indiscriminate slaughter of wolves ...'

would that have been acceptable, or does it place ken s. in a negative light?

thank you,

eric s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixerics61 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You can place it in the article if it's from a reliable source, as we define it. It being controversial, it would probably better to say that: The New York Times reports that ... <ref>''article citation''</ref>.

Positive definiteness

Your comments are requested on a discussion about whether or not a particular page is a disambiguation page or a stub here. Neelix (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested ...

in this RSN discussion, as you commented in the past on one of the sources. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Bald Hills Wind farm

Hi, have updated my post, contains no persons names. All content is factual, am happy to put in references to support.Timleroy (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

your revert at (ε, δ)-definition of limit

The current version of the page is inaccurate. Cauchy did not define continuity in terms of real inequalities, as the page currently implies. This was the reason for my edit. Tkuvho (talk) 12:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll defer to you on the history of mathematics, even though there are no sources presented for either statement. I reverted the mathematical error you made, however, in that neither the restriction on ε nor δ needs to be adjusted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I added a source. Tkuvho (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

inclusion of PrisonPlanet.com

I started discussion on Talk:Alex Jones (radio host) regarding its inclusion. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop in and say thanks...

Thisisborin9 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Hey, thanks for reverting the "nonsense" linkspam on my talkpage. Was quite confused for several seconds when I saw it. Thisisborin9 09:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Read the article

(moved to User talk:RyanRetroWickawack#Read the article) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Recurrence relation

You flagged a comment of mine as "disputed." What don't you agree with? It's true that when I cut & pasted the url for the reference, somehow part of the url got lost; however if you had clicked on "Binet formulas" you would have gotten to the right point.

A more detailed argument is given in http://www.amazon.com/Fibonacci-Sequence-Beyond-Bruce-Gilson/dp/1449974112, (p.9 ff.) though it would be frowned upon for me to plug my own book in my edit. -- BRG (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As I noted (and it should be at the discuss link), it's only correct if the n roots of the indicial equation are distinct; otherwise you need to have to have quasi-geometric series of the form m r^m. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OK... I did not know how to use that link, so I didn't spot your comment; true, because in fact an arithmetic progression can be expressed as a linear recurrence relation (as in fact this is even discussed in my book). I hope you will accept the revised wording. -- BRG (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Please let the previous edition I did of Patriarch Bartholomeos I (Bartholomew I).

Please let the previous edition I did of Patriarch Bartholomeos I (Bartholomew I), actually Vartholomeos as the orginial Greek letter "B" is pronounced as "V", but the letter had a different ponunciation in latin, and passed to all western languages. There are significant mistakes. For instance his first name is Dimitrios, and not Demetrios. This is so latin and westencentric. Practically every Greek personal names and place names are unfairly always latinized by westerners, like his original first name and patriarchal name for instance. And I do not mean the English translation of Patriarch Bartholomeos I. The "Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Greece" is also not correct, because it refers to the country of Greece, and not to ethnic Greeks who are Eastern Orthodox Christians, but are citizens of other countries. Otherwise a new category for ethnic Greeks who are Eastern Orthodox Christians should be created. That is why it should be "Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Turkey". Nor is he from Istanbul. He came there as a young adult. He is a native of the island of Imbros in Çanakkale Province.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.66.14 (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll defer to experts. This looks as if it might be another Greece-Turkey war, but I'll stay out of it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Pardon the vernacular

But really. I don't have to have "Oppose" in front of my comment in order for it to be understood, do I?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It appeared to be a comment on another !vote, possibly the preceding one. Sorry. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Steven Jones, Professor Emeritus

You show unusual and unfair bias against Dr. Steven Jones in your comment:

"I feel that this section of the talk page violated WP:BLP, as it implies that the subject is an idiot. Since I believe he is an idiot (but for different reasons), I don't know if I should remove it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC) "

You removed the statement about his being Professor Emeritus, supported by the BYU.edu world wide web page with his Curriculum Vitae. This is simply a fact, and should be included.

Professor Emeritus is defined in Wikipedia, as a full professor who retires in good standing.

Although Dr. Jones retired in 2006, the BYU.edu web site continues to update his CV, with his latest research, such as the one about Active Thermitic Material on September 2009. Obviously, BYU and Dr. Jones have a good relationship. BYU is under no obligation to post references to his articles about the WTC, especially after he retired. They would not do so, unless they respected his research.

The first paragraph about a living person should be about something major that they have done, not some dubious interpretation about an unsourced arrangement that was private between the parties involved. We have no idea what went on in their meeting, and it is inappropriate to speculate on Wikipedia.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicorp (talk • contribs) 14:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC

I see that User:ClimateGate and User:Tony1 mentioned you (!) as an example at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC#Support. I'm not sure what this is in reference to, but I thought you might want the opportunity to defend yourself if necessary.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 07:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary

God knows, I'm way open to any ideas. [redacted] [I]n August [...] Neil Brick's S.M.A.R.T conference occurrs. [redacted] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Eric Church

Regarding the CMT citation that you tagged with {{verify credibility}}: I would think that the website of a major television network would be reputable when it comes to sourcing information. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

One would think that, but there was a disclaimer about user-provided information. I didn't verify that the particular article was in the "news" section rather than the "user-provided (gossip)" section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The "news in brief" sections of that site are written by staff and therefore reputable. This much I know. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen it?

[4]--Mbz1 (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Year 2238

There may be no context available on Wikipedia as of yet, but removing it completely was a bit radical. Please leave it available while myself and the rest of the developers build context on Wikipedia to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.247.17 (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

An upcoming game from a non-notable game company (no offense, but there's no article on you, either) does not deserve an entry for its setting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

We are, in fact, notable. People who get around the Unreal forums are unlikely not to be aware of us - in fact, the reason that edit was added was because we were working on making a page anyways. (And Wikipedia hosts articles much more irrelevant than this)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.247.17 (talk) whatever o'clock, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Review

Please review destructive edits to Teabagging by User:68.25.103.189. -12.7.202.2 (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Odd edit on Information Theory

This edit seems a bit of a red flag. The fellow referenced has written some information based books, but I still don't know if it's legit. Auntie E. (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The Congress vs. Congress

So you believe the Constitution is grammatically incorrect when it refers to "the Congress" (e.g., here)? SMP0328. (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the Constitution has little contact with grammatical correctness, as seen in the discussion of the 2nd Amendment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do you believe "the Congress" is grammatically incorrect? SMP0328. (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletions from 9/11 conspiracy theories article

Hello there, I notice that you removed two referenced and seemingly topic-appropriate items from the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. Here is the first one you removed: "But some of those questioning the government's findings don't consider themselves extremists. "They simply believe the government's investigation was inadequate, and maintain that questioning widely held assumptions has been part of the job of scholars for centuries."(CBS News reference at http://web.archive.org/web/20071224135836/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/06/ap/national/mainD8JB6LTG0.shtml Here is the second one: "The group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of professional architects, engineers, and related professions, is petitioning Congress to reopen the investigation into the causes of the three World Trade Center building collapses." (Washington Times reference at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/?feat=home_columns "According to the group's website, 1114 architectural and engineering professionals have signed the petition." (A&E for 911 Truth home page reference at http://www.ae911truth.org/ You claimed the first was removed because it was unsourced, but there is a news source. You claimed the second gives the group A&E for 911 Truth undue weight, but that was the only group mentioned in the referenced news article. There is a discussion in process on the article's discussion page. Please take part in this discussion before removing any more referenced material. Thank you. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As has been pointed out before, the first semi-quote is not in the referenced article, and may be a BLP violation. Even if it's not a BLP violation, it's not referenced.

For the second, the groups characterization of its membership as being "architects and engineers" is not adequately sourced, even if it were notable, and I can't determine if the Washington Times article is "news" or a political commentary. It looks more like political commentary, making it also not suitable as a reference. There are a number of reasons why it shouldn't be there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

CO2 Science

[5] It`s not the source, it`s an entire section devoted to three or four lines of text, all i did was remove the section and put it at the bottom of the lede mark nutley (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Alex Jones

Dear Arthur,

1 Reason for this note Recently I added to text on Alex Jones, which (I am postulating) you rescinded, stating it did not appear to be constructive. I think we are all interested in the truth. Please tell me what was untrue about what I wrote.

2 Instant Messaging on WikiPedia? It would be helpful if WikiPedia had a way for a recipient to immediately reply to a post someone made (in this case, you). This is the first time I have ever received a comment, and had reason to reply to someone. I was able to track your user page and to post this message here.

3 Quality and Style of Information, _Functionality_, Truth Wikipedia attempts to be authoritative, but this authoritarian style is, most probably, going to adhere to the most commonly accepted truths, including rewrites of history, even if Wikipedia includes among its subjects such luminaries as Noam Chomsky. In absence of information - or even awareness that there exists controversies - a pupil is likely to swallow whatever is put before him at face value, without even the courtesy of being able to make up his mind. I am beginning to view and make use of discussion pages. I have not yet seen if the Discussion pages are used to keep up with elements of 'controversy'. It occurs to me that, together with any pronouncements, if alternate points of view are not presented, then any media is tantamount to propaganda. I read that you are Libertarian, as I am sure most of us are, who are true and old supporters of the Internet. Altho I have not read up on the perspectives of those who created WikiPedia, I would assume statistically that they probably are, as well. And I am gathering a perspective on the format of WikiPedia, and as this awareness continues, I see omissions (user-generated content), as well as constant and consistent bias, slanted towards the status quo. As we can see with the recent banking disasters, just because someone has a lot of money, or is 'accepted', or mainstream, this 'might' does not make right. History validates this, altho not necessarily the textbooks that are rewritten.

Are we interested the truth? Is Wikipedia interested in the truth? As it involves more than one person (more than just me), I cannot answer these questions when plural people are involved.

Even if we are committed to the truth, problems ensue. If a person's awareness is purely academic, he is merely a dis-interested reporter, without any actual knowledge of the fact(s). I think both of us would say that a carpenter is more qualified to speak on the subject of carpentry, than a person who has only read or heard of or discussed carpentry. An academic, a mere, student should not be the one to dictate to the general public what a subject is. This is pure speculation. ("Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." This is a sad statement, but largely relevant. It reflects the level of our remuneration and respect for teaching.)

I have several backgrounds. One of them is medicine/health. I have close to 40 years experience in what works in these regards. Yet, my experience in medicine/health will not be the same as another's, especially if he is only 'mainstream'. For example, the AMA has been convicted of fraud. It is obvious they have a confirmed bias, and are something else other than 'scientific'. Based on this, we can clearly confirm corruption of science. Most doctors are not real students, because they are not involved in researching the medical systems that have been employed in centuries or millennia past. In this sense, they are indeed only 'practicing', and have 'opinions'. Also, in strict truth, they promote 'remedies', and do not admit to 'cures', nor do they allow others the First Amendment to speak about 'cures'.

Arthur, in these many years I see what works, and what does not work. I have been interested in the Merovingian's 'Why?' Looking for answers, I have found them. I was compelled to look past the veil of mediocrity and ignorance. In doing this, I found my answers. There was no other way. Either I accepted and allowed and promoted the non-answers of the currently-in-force (literally) medical profession, and their abysmal track record, or I got down to brass tacks and did some research. I chose to find out. Abraham Lincoln made remarks to the effect that what you search for, you will find. Without searching and remaining aware of a possibility, it is unlikely you will be aware of the real meaning and import of something, even if it does cross your path. Knowing what works, and being able to do it, gives one power. This type of power is also used by the media forces (one can add AMA to that list) who are an entity existing to perpetuate itself. But this is not valid if they harm others. The media forces are in business to make money. Thus, they are materialistic in nature. Materialism, the making of money, is their #1 objective, and media is the means they use to do it. Vision-Mission-Objective. Motive-Means-Opportunity. Manipulation is what they 'know' how to do, and keep themselves in power by doing it. They are successful by their own definition. But what if one does not define 'success' as having the same statistical sicknesses and disease as the average person in the population? What if one does not desire to be 'mediocre'? What if one desires 'health'? This is not taught in the textbooks. In the textbooks, lots of little facts are doled out, as by rote. Yet, the big picture is left up to the student to piece together. But the student is so busy continuing on with the prevailing winds and dishing out the popular version of drugs and 'interventions' and 'invasiveness' that he takes little time to question the whether the 'authority' he has on supposedly 'good authority', or good faith, promulgated by his inherited teaching is, in fact, supreme, or only a statistical truth, all dependent on subsuming ONE set of assumptions.

Humans sit in a crossroads. Most of what they know is rooted in the shallow past, as shallow as the grave they shall soon occupy. Allopathic doctors occupy this grave even sooner than the common populace. Perforce, they do not have a functional handle on health at all. Experience shows they do not empirically and scientifically conform to the dictates of health. They are thus examples and proponents of a different system than pure health. So, do they speak from an advanced experience of health? No, they demonstrably do not. If fact, they demonstrate the opposite. This is not a conundrum. This is quid pro quo. Nature proves the thing of itself. It is what it is.

Arthur, I don't know you. So I can't claim to understand you. I have found, however, that I can trust Nature, if I trust myself to become more aware of it. I would say that this principle works for everyone. And I also say that, unless you can do something, you are not qualified to make pronouncements about it. I specifically say this because I have recently seen the debates about amateurism versus professionalism. And, as you can see by this note, I believe those who can do something should be allowed to speak about it, whether it is motorcycle design and repair or foreign travel or any discipline. I also think that it is not beyond the bounds of propriety to ask questions about the veracity or consistency of a group of people following a given discipline, as to what kind of efficacy that discipline has upon its followers.

Track record is track record. With regard to physical health, most children (and I include adults who are/were still children) have not done much in the way of scientific experimentation with regard to the input = output equation of diet. In science, we believe in the equations of cause and effect. Yet, how many have actually done serious experimentation on this subject? As far as the human population is concerned, we have the Merck Manual to give us statistics. Sad statistics these are. Clearly, consumption of animal and synthetic fats builds up on the vascular system, causes circulation problems, heart problems, lung problems; the leading causes of death. Yet, your average family doctor does not follow the dictates of Primum Non Nocere, causing no harm, and does not explain to his patients the damage done thru consumption of animal products. Neither does he recommend to stop this practice, and clean up his patients' lives. Why? Would there be a conflict of interest against his profession, if his clients were healthy? What would his $500,000 tuition be worth, if his clients had no need to come to him? If his clients were well, he'd be out of a job. If you are aware of the status of doctors in China centuries ago, you would be aware that they were paid only if their patients were NOT sick. Doctors were paid on the basis of performance, and were NOT paid if their methods fail. These days, it exactly the opposite. Doctors make money when their patients are sick. This is designing to fail, inviting corruption. This is negative science. The incentives are all wrong. It is a system designed to fail. This system follows the law of entropy, as do the doctors that practice it, who are demonstrably worse than average in the aspect of health. One gets what he deserves.

I have heard song writers, and many ordinary people say, "We are not meant to know." If we are not meant to learn and grow, then why are we alive, if we are only meant to suffer? If there is no way out, why should we even try? Why not cut your loses and give up now, ahead of the game?

Yes, while entropy is, indeed, a force to be reckoned with, nevertheless, if there is something else than fatalism and chaos in the world, then we must strive for it. Since the human being is clearly a construct following a higher Order or organization, then progress, if not complexity, is possible. If this kind of success is possible, it stands to reason that an even higher level of success is reachable. If it is reachable, then development demands we must strive for it. Alfred Korzybski, b1879-07-03, writes of 3 levels of Organization, plus more can be inferred. Plants are Energy Binders. Animals are Territory Binders. Humans are Time Binders. This is not speculative. Plants, animals, humans actually DO these things. So we are not talking theory or mere academics, here. We are not talking about first order logic or first order predicate calculus of possibilities, but rather Lambda Calculus, functionality, what works.

In my years of following health, I have learned. Where once I was aware of what allopaths were capable of doing at the time (which has not functionally or substantially changed over these decades), I have since become aware of better methods. You can't stand still in awareness and grow. Effort has to be made. I've been interested in making that effort. While in grade school and high school I moved forward at the rate of two years every year, as measured by the national scholastic tests. I have not stopped. Modern 'medical' science does not progress at this rate. Not even computing science moves forward this rapidly. In decades past, I was following artificial intelligence together with psychology and computing science and medical research, and speculating on simulation languages. I found that the human functionality in psychology can be described as programs that can be modeled in lambda calculus. Thus written as an equation, they can be more clearly understood. I have since picked up neurolingustic programming, which was developed during the same time I was working on developing functional models of psychology. I developed a successor to NLP, but found it functionally a more powerful technology than the average self- or group-motivated person could be safely entrusted to use. Only the more developed ecology aspect of this system am I free to openly talk about.

An exception to the 'sitting still' rule is meditation. To this end, I'd like to point out Walter Russell. If you've not read him, I suggest you do. Same with Noam Chomsky. Read most or all of everything they wrote will expectedly serve you well.

So my two cents are: If you know what you are doing, you can do it. And if you can do it, then you can talk about it. Only in that position are you in the position of being able to teach. As Randolph Stone said, "What works, works!" I'd go with that!

Let me know what the official policies are with respect to WikiPedia. I'm sure on this end that we'd all like to know and understand. Perhaps there are other alternatives to WikiPedia that are broader in scope and encourage more collateral understanding. Please point them out.

If I can be any help to you in your quest for growth, please let me know. As I am rather new to being involved in WikiPedia on a formal level, I have not posted my interests, and have not even been to my user page. Perhaps I will figure this out in short order. I haven't taken any tutorials, as yet. Perhaps you can give me some suggestions or links?

I look forward to the future development of WikiPedia and other developing models.

I hope I will get a response to any message you will write, as long as I am logged in to WikiPedia, as I would very much like to hear your reply.

Regards ~Mardana —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mardana (talk • contribs) 13:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

To begin with, I can't write as eloquently as you. But there may be some misunderstandings on the purpose of Wikipedia that I may be able to help you with. Also, remember that I can't speak for Wikipedia; there are specific policies, guidelines, and interpretations of such, but most are obtained by WP:CONSENSUS. There are a few policy directives from the Wikimedia Foundation, Jimbo Wales, and Wikipedia's legal counsel, but everything else is determined by consensus.

Wikipedia is not interested in WP:TRUTH, but in what can be verified. In the case of what you wrote in Alex Jones (radio host), I believe it to be untrue, but, more important to Wikipedia, you have not provided a reliable source for the information. (I should add that I also contribute to the Open Directory Project, which was, at least until recently, part of Time Warner.) Also, your noting the contributions as "WP:MINOR" seems inappropriate.

As for your contributions to acupunture, your sources do not appear to be what we call "reliable".

I normally reply on my own page, so you will not be informed of my reply unless you add this page to your watchlist. I'll issue a {{talkback}} note to your page so you will be informed this time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Twin Towers

I'm sorry, I did not know there were other instances of total progressive collapse of steel-frame buildings. Can you please provide me with your examples? - Tzaquiel (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what is this relevant to? That's not the false material you're adding this time. That material was of questionable relevance, but not false. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I intended to only remove your edits of 09:07 and 09:15, not those of 09:23 and 09:24. I'll work on putting that back, although I think the relevance is questionable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Obliged. I see how the language of my first edit could have been taken out of context. - Tzaquiel (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Salon did comment on these contributions

Hi Arthur, I'm commenting on your edit summary here, rather than the article's talkpage, b/c I assume this is just an oversight on your part. Anyways the cited Salon.com article does specifically mention Exxon funding the Center: "The father and son team of Sherwood and Craig Idso hail from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in Tempe, Ariz., which has also received money from ExxonMobil," from page 2 of the article. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. It does explain why I don't consider salon reliable, but I won't fight the consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

350.org

Time to do something about this idiot? Has been trolling the premises a bit too much, and the blatant advocacy is not acceptable (imho). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, could you folks take a look at the CASA of Maryland section on my talk page? I reverted Rahmspeed's edits because I felt they were not NPOV. I also expanded his Messenger comment on 350.org to improve NPOV (although I am fine with deleting the whole paragraph for non-notability). I am fairly new at Wiki and am confused about whether Rahmspeed is now 98.141.74.65, and what to do about his POV additions. I have to logoff now for several hours, and will check back later. I'd appreciate any thoughts you have. Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Sorry, I was mistaken on the Messenger comment, it's on Colin Beavan, by 99.190.91.251. Bento00 (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• At least that guy does have some connections to 350.org (mentions it on his blog), which unfortunately cannot be said of some of the others that are 350 spammed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

100%

Hello - you have removed my addition to the talk page which amazes me. Surely talk page contributions should, unless spam / vandalism etc, be free from such censorship? As a mathematician you should see that what I submitted was factually correct and a valid point of view, not to say demonstrably correct. DesmondW (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk page contributions may be removed if they aren't related to improving the article; musings on the subject are not helpful. (And your comments are 100% wrong, anyway. 125% increase has a perfectly good meaning. )— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I simply cannot believe your high handed attitude, talk contributions are for discussion and mine were both related and relevant. Removing my contribution simply because you don't agree is vandalism and against the Wiki ethos "Revisions are not reviewed before they appear on the site. Content is not the result of an editorial decision by the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff" so you cannot individually decide whether my submission is related or not.

Now I will demonstrate in even simpler terms to you, as a mathematician, why what I am saying is correct and the common usage, as so often the case, is misleading.

125% does have a common meaning, which I do not dispute, but it is incorrect usage of percentiles and this should be reflected in the page.

If a value decreases from 1,000 to 100, whether this be millions of turnover or any other measure, then this would be described as 90% decrease, which is correct and surely beyond dispute. If the value then increases from 100 back to 1,000 then the percentile ****must**** be the same, in other words 90% (900 / 1000). This is not opinion, it is logic. Percentiles should always be calculated using the larger number as the base.

Unfortunately common usage differs because advertisers want to use the bigger percentage since it sounds better, "50% increase" sounds bigger than "33 1/3%" growth and so we continue to be misled.

Please reinstate my original submission and I will enlarge it to try and make the meaning clearer to everyone. Your "125%" for example should, properly, be described as 20% growth (25 / 125).DesmondW (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's wrong, and you should know it. Your claim that percentages should be calculated using the larger number is unsupported in both common usage and in mathematics. It may be an alternative formulation, as your distinction between "50% increase" (correct) and "33 1/3% growth" (generally incorrect, using standard terms). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

trig edit

Could you explain why my edit was not totally correct on the trig article, just for my own clarity.Bgreise24 (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It has to do with the difference between the period of a periodic function and a period. If

$f(x+T)=f(x)$

for all x, then T is a period of f. If T is the smallest such positive number, then T is the period of f. Hence, 2π is a period of all elementary trigonometric functions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

AH, I see. So technically speaking 2pi is a period of tangent. I just thought it should be made clear that it was not THE period. I'm glad we came to a wording that satisfies both scenarios. That was my first edit btw, so thanks for helping me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.115.136 (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Is Wikipedia considered non commercial as far as uploading CC images?

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

42 (number) page

Hi Arthur, Could you please explain why this reference and link to source were removed? I read your message about my "experiment" with Wikipedia, however, the information I submitted is true, relevant and verifiable by source. I realize that this is my first contribution, but your edit message seemed a bit of a canned response and I was hoping you could perhaps clarify your reasoning for its irrelevance. Thank you. Dustin Thacker Dlthacker (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It may have been verifiable, but

1. Not verified, as the source given is a blog apparently written by the father. The source clearly fails WP:RS, and, as it relates to a presumably living person and seems contentious, immediately deletable, per WP:BLP.
2. Not notable that a non-notable person (no offense intended) has a middle name of "42".
3. Trivia about 42 weeks of pregnancy and the digit sum of the birth date would not be notable even about the person in question.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

R&I mediation

Arthur, FYI: I refactored your comment about Brian Pesta being fringe. I have a strict 'no commenting on other editors' rule in that mediation (and it is sorely needed) so while I'm glad you've come to participate, I do need you to stick with the same mediation rules that everyone else is following. thanks. --Ludwigs2 21:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a difficult choice to decide whether his published works are FRINGE or he's FRINGE as an editor, and discussion of the first is required for a sensible discussion. Still, I'll defer that for the length of the mediation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

any sourced material you want to enter into the discussion is fine, I just don't want it to slip over the border into trying to discredit other editors. I do not believe the article will actually cite anything by him - his only purpose here is to give some expert advice, and I believe the bulk of the outline was constructed without a whole lot of input from him. Treat him like an editor with specialized knowledge, not like a source, and things should be fine.

and thanks for showing up. I think your input will make for an improved article. --Ludwigs2 23:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

P.s. - in case you haven't seen it, David.Kane asked for some input from you on viable and unviable sources, here. if you have any insights, feel free, or you can leave it until after the draft is in and we start the review process. --Ludwigs2 17:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Transitivity examples

Hi Arthur. I think you missed the absence of a "not" here, since being an ancestor of is not transitive. Paul August ☎ 12:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Being an ancestor of is transitive; while being a relative of, although technically transitive, is not transitive in practice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, of course you're correct (I was somehow subconsciously thinking of symmetry - how stupid). Paul August ☎ 22:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Jim Tucker

How about something like this: "Tucker has developed the Strength Of Case Scale (SOCS), which evaluates what Tucker sees as four aspects of potential cases of reincarnation" (my addition being "what Tucker sees as")? Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That looks fine. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring in Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Hello Arthur Rubin, as I assume you are well aware, that article is currently under a 1 revert restriction ("Do not make any edit to the article that reverses the edit of another user in whole or in part more than once in any 24 hour period"), which I believe you have violated by the following two edits:

• [6] (reverting this edit by Dave souza)
• [7] (reverting my edit, and adding a few words)

With both edits, you re-added the vague and contentious (see also [8]) term "government organisations". I hope you will be able to address my concerns in the ongoing discussion on the article talk page (which I had reviewed before making my edit), especially by naming other "such" government organizations.

Here, I'd like to ask you something else: Why did you revert my correction of the NYTimes link? Do you see any advantages in the format

[E-Mails Show Scientists Planning Push-Back Against 'McCarthyite' Attacks on Climate Science http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/03/05/05greenwire-e-mails-show-scientists-planning-push-back-aga-33296.html]

instead of

E-Mails Show Scientists Planning Push-Back Against 'McCarthyite' Attacks on Climate Science ?

Or did you just not take the time to examine my edit fully before reverting?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I had intended to just insert ICO, rather than say "government organisations such as ICO", which wouldn't have been a revert. Notheless, in normal English, the plural includes the singular in a list; one doesn't say, "actors, directors, and a producer", but, instead, "actors, directors, and producers" even if there is only one. I don't see an appropriate place to discuss on the talk page. It would be WP:OR to assert that only one government organization accuses UEA of misconduct, and only slightly less to imply that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

ICO alone would indeed not involve the same concern (although there are still others). I disagree with your second sentence - to me "government organisations such as ICO" very strongly suggests that there must be more of them. And I don't think anyone proposed a wording like "only one government organization". But at least thanks for the partial self-revert. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

CRU edit

Arthur, I do not see how the word "vindicated" is "peacock". Your preferred "cleared" is not really a synonym. I took great pains to add a citation directly to that word, thereby replacing the "peacock" tag. The source cited specifically says they were vindicated. That's verifiableand as we know the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. For whatever reason, I didn't see it in the source. It's a false interpretation of the report, but verified. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Asking a favor

Hi Arthur, would you please be a little more tolerant of the newbies? All s/he did was offer some links on the talk page. Yea, they are not RS, but everyone deserves a chance to learn without feeling bad. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

:) Ward20 (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A bit overzealous on reversals?

I have previously complained that many of the articles posted on individual biographies, especially of politicians, and of various organizations exhibit profound bias toward their own ideological position. Most of the time I come up to such a page, I leave a flag and perhaps a note on the discussion page. Yesterday, I chose to do otherwise and have gone through a number of sources to update and correct blatant biases in a couple of articles. One was Pete Wilson, former governor of California. The other was Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is the oil industry version of the Tobacco Institute. Both articles had been written largely with platitudes, in glowing tone about the good that has been done by these paragons of wisdom and public service. Sarcasm aside, there had to be a change. Encyclopedic biographies are not supposed to be hagographies and allowing single-issue organizations to submit their propaganda as referenced material is simply inconceivable. I spent a lot of time on these two revisions, checking and rechecking sources and posting only the information that I either knew to be factual or that was directly quoted from the sources. If I might have occasionally posted something that was not neutral, it was largely because of the frustration with hagiographers combined with the volume of information that needed attention--believing that any of us are so pure at heart that we can get away with a substantial volume of work without exhibiting occasional biases.

I tried the posts to be neutral, but, since virtually all information on both pages was heavily biased, much of what I inserted could be seen as criticism. Unfortunately, some neutral information that does not jibe with the myth will always be seen as biased criticism by supporters. No exceptions here.

My corrections on Pete Wilson saw a minor correction by one "Arthur Rubin"--a correction that appears to be valid and one that I missed because I left alone (aside from minor grammatical fixes) a piece of information posted previously. In this case, assuming the revised version is accurate, we can easily agree. However, later today, virtually entire portions of the page were removed by user "JoinArnold" who has had a history of similar behavior on the same page. Basically, he struck down ALL information that was critical of Pete Wilson's performance as Governor and even took out direct quotations from Wilson himself concerning serious issues and important mileposts. If JoinArnold is not banned from posting for his antics, it will be a travesty.

Then I looked at the Competitive Enterprise Institute page. To my concern, I found a full reversal posted by the same "Arthur Rubin", purportedly removing bias. Upon further review, I noticed that some wording could have been improved to avoid bias, but the changes where I made them needed to be made. A blank reversal was simply unjustified. I only want to mention a couple of instances.

First the biases. At one point, I appended the phrase "...leading critics to attack CEI as representing conservative and corporate polluter interests" to a list of organization funders. Although the claim that the funding came from the foundations that support exclusively conservative causes (Scaife, Earhart), and companies that are usually identified as opponents of "environmental causes" (Ford, ExxonMobil, Pfizer), perhaps it was gratuitous of me to actually connect the dots and I should have just left links to the respective Wiki pages, if they exist. Removing this particular line would have been reasonable, although I am not sure it was a bias on my part (as the information is accurate).

Second, I replaced the word "fame" with "infamy" in the sentence, "CEI's global warming policy activities gained infamy as it embarked upon an ad campaign with two television commercials." Again, my correction is accurate. The CEI's commercial made an absurd claim that increased carbon dioxide production is beneficial to the planet, accentuated by an equally absurd punchline, "They call it pollution. We call it LIFE." If they said that Earth was flat, no one would have minded describing the attention as "infamy". But if "infamy" is biased, so is "fame". Both are value-laden. "Notoriety" is more neutral in some contexts and less neutral in others. Perhaps "gained attention" would be the most neutral improvement--whatever it may be, it should not be "fame". So, please, make the correction--a meaningful correction--but don't assume that some hack is sitting at the computer trying to poison the well.

I do take back one correction fully. I replaced words "said of" as the verb in the sentence, "In March 1992, CEI’s founder Fred Smith offered a much derided opinion on global warming." Smith's opinion was indeed much derided, but it was not universally derided. So, "said" is probably as close to neutral as we are going to get, although I probably would have preferred "stated". On the contrary, in another sentence, I replaced "stating" with "claiming". The word "claiming" is not value-laden--it represents someone making an unsubstantiated statement, which is exactly what happened here: "It favors free-market environmentalism, stating that market institutions are more effective in protecting the environment than is government." This sentence corresponds to an unsubstantiated, self-promoting claim on the CEI's website. It is not a statement of fact, it is a statement of opinion, meant to challenge those who do not see it as valid. In other words, it is a claim. I fully stand by the correction I made here.

Another absurd correction that someone made earlier is replacing the word "consumers" with "humans". "Humans" is a word from the domain of science fiction, not encyclopedic discourse. In encyclopedias, we usually say "people" unless we want to specify the kind of people we are talking about, e.g., consumers. I have no problem with "consumers" being gone, but replacing it with "humans" is puerile. If I were grading student papers (which I do, occasionally), I would purge it. If I were editing a manuscript (which I do professionally all the time), I would have corrected it. So I did the same here--the word "humans" in this context is absolutely inappropriate. Reverting the entire revision restores "humans" back where it was. Not good!

Another idiotic correction made previously was replacing CO₂ with CO2. No, sorry, the symbol you are looking for is CO₂. CO2 is a convenience usually reserved for a typewriter (and for a newspaper headline). Oh? We are not working on a typewriter? Then we should not be using CO2 and place the correct symbol in its place: CO₂. Again, not good!

I am not going to go through every thoughtless "correction" that a full reversion by "Arthur Rubin" produced. But my advice to Arthur Rubin is, don't assume that others are dumber than you or that they are out to get you or someone else. Thoughtful corrections require thoughtful further corrections, not a magic reversion keystroke. And a thoughtful editor must also recognize that some neutral, apparently objective words can become weasel words in some contexts (as "free-market" is on the CEI page--it is not neutral, it's a dog-whistle term).

Please take that under advisement as you return to CEI page, as you promised. And, if you have such an opportunity, please help ban JoinArnold from posting partisan scribbles. Alex.deWitte (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid most articles on individuals and organisations should end up being slightly biased toward their point of view, because they are reliable on their own views, and most sources on political matters are unreliable. I'm not convinced that all your changes in Pete Wilson were correct, but there were no clearly unsourced controversial statements about him that you added. In CEI, there were controversial statements that you added without providing any source, and some of the sources you provided were that of, shall we say, political organizations that disagree with CEI? If I had had more time, I would have just reverted the sections that were BLP violations or clearly incorrect.

I believe "infamy" is listed in WP:AVOID; if not, it should be. Although "claim" is also listed, I agree that it's often the only neutral term available.

For what it's worth, I believe the funding information for most organizations is inappropriate for Wikipedia, unless a real reliable source makes note of it. (I strongly object to exxonsecrets being considered, for example.) Even if the actual funding information is available (as it is for some non-profits), adding it to the article is "connecting the dots", and IMHO, violates WP:SYN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Joinarnold has a point; we don't reject biased articles as sources, but we do reject editorials and opt-ed pieces, and some of those were of that type. I would ask you to remove the information not sourced to news articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what you say, in general. you are right about exxonsecrets--it is just as biased as the CEI. But a site may be biased in its view and well researched and documented at the same time--the bias may come for the selection of targets more than the presentation. I consider MediaTransparancy an example of this, although it has now been folded into MediMatters site. Their research is done directly from tax forms and corporate reports and the data they find are beyond reproach. One might criticize them for going only after conservative organizations, but this hardly reflects on the quality of their data. They have CEI on their target list.

Here's the problem. The goal of an organization such as CEI is, from the outset, propaganda. Their own literature is written specifically with that purpose in mind. Unless it is directly cited in bits reproduced here, it seems to be an inappropriate use of sources--at best, it is an equivalent of an editorial. In contrast, among the citations I added for Pete Wilson, there is an editorial that actually endorsed Wilson for governor, so one would assume that it is not of the type that you want to see removed. In fact, the 1994 endorsement was the first LA Times endorsement since 1970, which they clearly stated on the page. Perhaps this fact should be added to make it clear that it is not a trivially biased source. Other sources and citations that Joinarnold had removed were a San Diego Union Tribune article that literally quoted Wilson at the unveiling of his statue. The only source previously cited was PR from Wilson's employer, and, even then, two of the quotes match between the sources--I just added an extra one since there was no doubt of authenticity. I only quoted one other column and it was in context. The rest of the sources are all news articles (except for corrected or updated links posted by others that I did not remove--I did remove one dead link).

In general, I believe, full reversion should be a measure of last resort, when there is a clear attempt to mislead, deceive or introduce blatant bias. I don't think trying to balance a hagiography of a public servant qualifies for such treatment. My objection to Joinarnold was not merely the immediate act of scrubbing not just everything I added, but also taking out all the underlying factual information that has been sitting on the page for a long time--something that this user has done on this page before, and always apparently for the sake of protecting the legend, rather than the record. There is no place in an encyclopedia for legends, unless they are clearly identified as such. Public figures are responsible for all the bad as well as the good things they do. This applies to politicians, clergy, public advocates, actors, writers, etc. One cannot write about the Papacy and not mention the controversy over child abuse from the last decade, even if this appears critical of the Church. The goal is to provide factual account and attempt to avoid bias. But this goal should be embraced by all, not just the critics.

I still suggest that someone look into Joinarnold's activities on the site. His actions on the Pete Wilson page introduce bias rather than remove it. His list of contributions includes a large number of similarly sourced and related pages. In fact, his own user name, although not dispositive, is certainly suggestive when it comes to California politics. If he is not directly a Republican operative in California, he is certainly a fellow traveler. I have no such allegiances. I am equally critical of Left, Right, Middle and Uninvolved and believe the full record should be shown for all. I am not aware of a prohibition on "fact bias".

Keep up the good work. Alex.deWitte (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

RV at Types of Rape

Hi Arthur

You made an RV at Types of Rape just recently. There's some discussion going on around that at the talk page that is relevant to this. Maybe you can contribute there as well? Thepm (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Recovered memory

I reverted your edit. Surely, "recovered memory" and "repressed memory" are not the same thing. The former is the later, but not vice versa. -- Taku (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No, they're not exactly the same thing. But recovered memory is now a copyright violation; it should have been significantly edited down from repressed memory, and credit given. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a copyright violation. It's from cz. Maybe it should be edited down. But redirecting isn't how you do it. You don't redirect a page just because you think it has a problem. -- 20:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a copyright violation unless you credit the authors of the cz article and the translator. And there was consensus that recovered memory was a subset of repressed memory, and its existence is so disputed that there shouldn't be a different article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand licensing. Wikipedia and CZ are licensed under cc-by-sa. Therefore you can freely mix contents with attributions of course. But we're giving credits. Finally, the consensus can change. If you have a problem with the existence of the article, then the correct path is to take it to fad. Please try to be more constructive. You're not being reasonable. -- Taku (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to credit the authors of the cz article on the talk page, at a minimum. However, the article should be first incorporated into repressed memory, and the relevant points split out. Hoaving parallel articles with some (but not all) of the same information is bad form. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

And consensus can change, but there's no evidence that it has. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

And are you suggesting "consensus = Rubin's opinion"? Seriously? -- Taku (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought there was consensus, but I can't find it in the archives. On the other hand 2008, seems to be missing....

However, it's clear that the concept of recovered memory is covered in the article repressed memory, and you should request a split, rather than arbitrarily creating a different article on recovered memory. It's still a WP:CFORK. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What's good for the goose ...

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Well-formed formula. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

I'm serious. Best I can tell, your behavior is no different than Gb's, so I decided to follow your lead. Paradoctor (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. I should have reported the reason that at least some of the changes that I reverted were absurd, but I believe I've only reverted twice, so far. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You believe correctly. I checked it before I posted here. The same number of reverts that Gb made.

"the changes that I reverted were absurd": IMHO, that doesn't justify the second revert. The same holds for Gregbard. You guys sound like an old couple. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		You are good people, trying to help clueless n00bs with a burr under their saddles. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

commercial links masked as references for seduction community-related articles

Hey Arthur,

I'm new here so maybe I'm off-base, but there are a lot of links being thrown into articles like pickup artist and The Game by Neil Strauss that are purely commercial. Is there a way to set some sort of alert for these? Namely afcadamlyons.net and thegameneilstrauss.com (among others). —Preceding unsigned comment added by HateToLoveMe (talk • contribs) 01:33, April 13, 2010

You may be thinking of the blacklist; discussed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. That would only apply if there was no possible use for the site. If there was a possible use, you might talk to the Edit filter people about whether there is a way to construct a filter to tag additions of questionable links.

Given such a link, you can check where it's found by using Special:Linksearch, but the searches are case-sensitive, so a good spammer could find a way to bypass it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

mention to Bruce Bursford in Geller article.

They both appeared together in TV shows at that time, and were covered by British press, so I think it was as notable as other parts of the Uri Geller article. However, maybe you can move the sentence to a better place of the article. --Jordiferrer (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

God morgon.

Jag förstår din oro, men din felaktig bedömning av den nordamerikanska unionen bygger på dina falska amerikanska känslor. Som jag påpekade, är du som talar engelska, vilket är olyckligt, men för att underlätta din omräkning till svenska språket, jag ska hjälpa dig att anpassa sig till befälhavaren språket. Något sätt, finns det inget sätt att du vet vad du pratar om. Förhållandet med roboten skall bekräftas bara tills du accepterar att din inblandning i den svenska affärer inte kommer att förbli ostraffade. Detta är din enda varning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartan (talk • contribs) 00:58, March 23, 2010

That looks like a threat to me.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"I understand your concern, but your incorrect assessment of the North American Union based on your fake American feelings. As I said, are you speaking English, which is unfortunate, but to facilitate your conversion to the Swedish language, I'll help you adapt to master the language. Anyway, there is no way that you know what you're talking about. The relationship with the robot must be confirmed until you accept that your involvement in the Swedish business will not go unpunished. This is your only warning." That is his only warning? Who are you to say that! I don't care what language you write in, you cannot threaten people with comments such as these without repercussions in the long run. Change your ways my friend! --AycliffeAngel (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Razborov

Arthur, FYI, Alexander Razborov is one of the world's foremost CS theorists. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

South Ossetia war title

I have made a number of attempts to have the article title changed to no avail. When this war first started it was limited to South Ossetia and as such the title was legitimate. The moment it expanded beyond South Ossetia and into Abkhazia and the west coast a number of editors began suggesting the name be changed to reflect the scope of the conflict. At the time there was no clear alternative name and it was subject to such constant edit-warring that the article was move-protected. Since then the only recourse has been to have discussions on the title in the hopes of reaching of a consensus. Unfortunately, no matter how much time passes and how much stronger the case for a change gets a group of editors with an extremely biased position always flood the discussions to prevent a change.

In the most recent discussion I started on the current talk page one editor supportive of a change decided it was a lost cause because he felt any discussion would see a number of pro-Russian editors flood the discussion and prevent a consensus from being seen. So far it seems the only way this title is ever going to be changed is by an admin's decision. I gave a decent summary of the arguments for a change a few months ago here, more importantly it contains the most recent arguments for keeping, and this earlier discussion showed strong support for a change, though there was some funny business done with the discussion by a non-admin. The admin reviewing it did however say that objections based on neutrality were invalid and only left the issue of descriptiveness and common name as no consensus. However, I do not see any legitimate argument for keeping this article and plenty for changing it. This is something I am sending to a few admins who appear to have no involvement in the article or the name dispute in the hopes of getting some authoritative position on the current title. If you can think of any admins who might be more interested in this then feel free to say.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Reorganized U.S. dollar "Value" section

Arthur: I posted draft revisions for the U.S. dollar "Value" section in my sandbox. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JasonCupertino/Sandbox JasonCupertino (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

England

As an administrator I find it unhelpful to Wikipedia that you reverted back to an inaccurate edit (without even any discussion no less). In England we have a parliamentary system, NOT a parliamentary democracy. I don't profess to be knowledgeable about the Political system in California. Please see the Wikipedia article Democracy. Thanks. Vexorg (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is it not a parliamentary democracy? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Bitter melon

I can see your just going through my contribs and having a moment. I have reverted you revert because your reversion was removing accurate information. <sigh> Vexorg (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Your edit there is probably inaccurate, and certainly unsourced. But I'll let that one go, although most of your edits were clearly wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of my edits 'Clearly wrong' ? 'probably inaccurate' ? - Seriously, are you being serious? Look, I edited without knowing the policy on italics and quotes on the Alex Jones article. You then obviously had a look at my 'contribs' and decided to glibly revert some more of my edits without taking the time to do your research. Apart from the italics thing, which I concede (it's no biggie) , 'most' of my edits are not clearly wrong. I also noticed you just reverted an edit by Supreme Deliciousness on the Alex Jones article, which was sourced. As an administrator is this correct behaviour. Vexorg (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness's edit was not sourced; Alex's web sites are usable, at most, for Alex's opinions. I'm not entirely sure they are reliable even for that; I recall some retcon edits to the website, but I can't find them any more. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Mathematical Intelligencer

I noticed you reverted some edits on the Decimal page, with the comment that "none of the sources are reliable". One of the sources was The Mathematical Intelligencer, which I would have assumed to be reliable, i.e., I thought that although it was less technical, it was meant to be no less scholarly than Springer's other journals.

Could you confirm this one way or the other for me? Many thanks.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If it really was The Mathematical Intelligencer, or a personal web site accurately quoting The Mathematical Intelligencer, and the it's an "article" (as opposed to an editorial or letter), it's allowable. (If it's a personal web site, that needs to be make clear in the citation. Most of our citation templates which have a "url" field also have a "format" field, where "courtesy copy" should be placed.) The first few citations I checked were all personal web sites, and (at least, in the citation, itself), didn't mention that they were taken from a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

After checking, it is entirely my mistake. I apologize. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem but many thanks for clearing that up. I would have been a bit confused if it turned out that The Mathematical Intelligencer wasn't a reliable source.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Decimal

Hi, first, please check out Chinese numerals. Chinese shí (=10) has no positional value and so have many other Chinese numerals, neither. For self-evident facts like these, there are no more reference necessary than for pointing out that the Pyramids of Gizeh are of pyramidonal shape. About the other reference, why shouldn't it be not reliable? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Decimal, where this discussion should have been all along. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Decimal. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Aliyot

You recently reversed an edit I had made to "Aliyot" being redirected to "Torah Reading" from the original link which was to "Aliyah". I am simply asking why my edit was reversed seeing as I though the links page was inaccurate. Do you want me to elaborate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin1414141414141414 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Please elaborate. Some of your edits were clearly violation of Wikipedia style guidelines, and if that edit was among those, I may have made reverted it without careful thought. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

However, it wasn't me. It was Cluebot, as there isn't an article on Torah Reading. As far as I can tell, "aliyot" is the Hebrew plural of aliyah, so should redirect that the disambiguation page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sierra Club page and controversies on 350ppm and Clorox

Hello Arthur,

I would like to know why you removed my additions to the Sierra Club page pertaining to the recent (and important) controversies on the widely-agreed upon 350ppm emissions targets and Carl Pope's implicit endorsement of Clorox. These were not hit pieces, but fully-referenced and legitimate additions to the "controversy" section. I have been a Sierra Club member on and off for many years and have no particular agenda against them or Carl Pope; I just read read some interesting articles in The Nation and, in lesser detail, in Mother Jones that I felt were relevant to an overall view of the club. My edits and references were removed without comment or justification. I would like an explanation. Thank you. DuendeThumb (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The additions were polemic, and the tone would not have been supported by any article that could have come from a reliable source, although I did not verify whether The Nation is normally a reliable source. Looking back, they were supported by The Nation, but that only means that, at least those articles, are not reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I would beg to differ on The Nation being an unreliable source; yes it has an ideological slant but so, frankly, does The Economist and these are some of the best sources for investigative journalism in play at this point. The original article was followed-up by a series of letters and press releases put out by the individuals and environmental groups discussed, and they were all allowed equal time for refutation and point/counterpoint. Carl Pope did not dispute what the article said, but rather mounted a defense of Clorox and their "Green Line" of products. The Greenwashing of corporations is a trend that has been discussed in the mainstream media many times before (most recently at this NY Times article), and it is indisputably apparent that many mainstream environmental groups are complicit with this practice. I'd like to reinstate the text cut from the article in full or part, perhaps with a tone shift, unless you can provide compelling evidence to the contrary from another reliable source. DuendeThumb (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That particular article in The Nation has such a tone that it should be considered an editorial (and hence not reliable), even if The Nation is normally reliable. Articles in (generally reliable) newspapers and magazines are allowed as sourced, columnists, editorials, letters, and other rants, are not. You can use the NY Times article to support whatever it says, but that particular rant from The Nation is not a reliable source, in my opinion. Perhaps consensus at WP:RSN would find otherwise, and I would reluctantly agree that the material could be accepted if it were stated in an encyclopedic manner.

I would encourage you to read the Clorox wiki article, which ends with a statement about the company's alleged Greenwashing cited from a source at MSN. If we are to take the Sierra Club's own press releases and summary statements as "reliable sources" for text in this article (as the article's main section does), then we might want to question Pope's assertions (found here) in favor of an unbiased source (MSN being a good example). Pope's refusal to refute the article and his continued defense of Clorox (in the face of contradictory information in other reliable media) provides evidence that it can be cited as a source in this instance. I will be reposting the text with a citation for the MSN article as well, which should cover the requirements. DuendeThumb (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not MSN, it's a blog. It may be quoting MSN, in which case we can use the real MSN article. I probably should tag it there as {{verify credibility}}, but I'd delete it from Carl Pope's article completely as a BLP violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into it for sourcing. DuendeThumb (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring report

I have reported Canada Jack for edit-warring and your name was mentioned in reference to past conduct. Be advised I did not report you, but your conduct may be questioned as a result.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Trivia and Numbers

You said not to add trivia to the Number 22 page. However, the page is loaded with trivia (what are Jersey Numbers, and how many chapters in Revelations?). My entry was just a test to see if the data would be accepted, and quite an interesting piece of knowledge for people interested in studying the Bible. I don't see why it is not fitting for the Religious heading. Please explain how my entry is different from what is already posted there.

Thanks FarAwayBen (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)FarAwayBen

Your additions are numerological trivia, rather than being specific trivia.

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers#Numbers in religion, only numbers which actually occur in the bible are worthy of note, although I might consider the number of chapters in Revelations subject to that if the Chapter/Verse designation is considered divinely inspired.

Retired jersey numbers have been accepted by consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers#Numbers in sports, although I think this may be worth revisiting.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. That's useful information for me. I didn't did deep enough into the Guide. I'll try out a couple that should fit within the guidelines in the sandbox and then post them to see if they are ok. I'll try to do more homework in the future.

The numbers on jerseys seems frivolous. It would make more sense to note something like "there have only been 22 triple plays/perfect games, etc in baseball history" Something to that effect. Am I getting the right idea? I'll read the guide. I appreciate the feedback. FarAwayBen (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Post WWII Baby Boom

I originally inserted this information in here some time ago based on world-wide raw birth rate or fertility rate data I ran accross. In retrospect, the years I used were deciphered by POV. This time I tried to get some published data on baby booms in various countries, which resulted in the latest edit. For example, I don't think anyone in Ireland considers their baby boom from 1946-1982, though the data may suggest that (to some). Ledboots (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Error in Complex fraction page

Hey there, I was just wondering why my edit of the correct calculations were reverted to the old wrong ones, is this just normal procedure for every edit or is something else up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.149.126.185 (talk)

I'm not Arthur Rubin but noticed your post. Your edit [9] assumed that $12{\frac {3}{4}}$ means the product $12\cdot {\frac {3}{4}}$ but it means the mixed number $12+{\frac {3}{4}}$ Arthur Rubin was correct to revert you. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, you are completely correct, I was skimming the article for something else when that paragraph stood out, I had simply forgotten that oldtime notation. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Graph theory terminology

Please see Talk:Route inspection problem‎ for a discussion of common graph-theoretical terminology, specifically path, trail, walk, and circuit. Thank you. Zaslav (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment

I signed your comment on AN/I you forgot to sign it so I had to hunt through to find out who wrote it. I appreciate the proposal. I made a comment on it (and gave it its own subsection since its a concrete proposal. I mostly agree with what you wrote.--Crossmr (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean you are willing to enforce those restrictions? Any administrator needs to tell him so. He won't listen to anyone else.--Crossmr (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: your revert of cited material on Bianca Jagger's article

I fully documented all my work on Jagger's talkpage. My work came from a request by Jimbo Wales which also is documented. I posted on Jagger's talkpage that you reverted 16 citations. FYI. --Morenooso (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it was the same source 16 times, and it didn't appear reliable. Furthermore, the tone is first-person. However, if you reinsert, I'll just tag. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No, they weren't.--Morenooso (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, another admin previewed all my work. Unfortunately he isn't around today. You can read all posts on her talkpage and Jimbo's posts as well. --Morenooso (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your revert. That was big of you and I may have taken you to task. I apologize.

Since all my work is traceable, I will reveal to you that Ged UK is the other admin. You can see what we discussed in User_talk:Ged_UK#Help_with_Bianca_Jagger_article.

Re comment on Network TwentyOne article

Arthur, I'm aware WP:BLP does not apply to organizations, however WP:V explicity states damaging information should not be left in articles on living organizations. This is often ignored for the consensus that WP:BLP applies only to people, which to my mind is crazy - it's not OK to libel individuals, but it's perfectly OK to libel groups of individuals? What's the rationale behind that? --Insider201283 (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, but BLP, an exception I don't want to go into, and office actions are the only exceptions to 3RR. BLP has been ruled to apply if it refers to identifiable individuals (the president of X), but not for groups.. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Virtual Worlds vs. Virtual Events

Regarding this passage: "One of the key differences between virtual worlds and virtual events is that a virtual world is available as a persistent environment, even after the live part of the event is over", I believe the content contained at http://journals.tdl.org/jvwr/article/download/294/248/ has been misinterpreted.

Virtual events most certainly remain available as a persistent environment after the live event is over. In fact, it's standard practice of virtual event platform vendors to keep the virtual event persistent for 90 days. While there are many differences between virtual worlds and virtual events, this is not one of them.

References: [1] http://www.foliomag.com/2009/virtual-events-come-their-own - review the section labeled "Archive Etiquette" near the end of the article.

Dshiao (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion: Merging the articles for "Hyperplane" and "Flat"

• Hyperplane
• Flat (geometry)

I'd like to discuss the possibility of merging these two articles. Your opinion on this matter is welcomed: Talk:Hyperplane#Merge to Flat (geometry) Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 20:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Question about an edit summary

Hi Arthur. You made an edit with a summary of "I guess I should add myself, as a CalendarWatcher". What was the meaning behind that summary, and why did you use the words "CalendarWatcher" in that way (with no space between the words, and with both a capital "C" and "W")?  HWV258.  20:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It was more of a CamelCase pun—as you can see, I was adding myself to WikiProject Time, and I was spending a lot of time (OK, pun intended) on WP:DOY (Day of Year) articles, hence "calendar watcher". I think I was aware of the editor CalendarWatcher, but, IIRC, I wasn't really aware of anything bad he/her may have done, except being a little abrasive at times. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining.  HWV258.  10:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Chair

please take a look at the last two edits on Chair by 76.122.147.156 and deal with the situation as you deem appropriate. i can't entirely dedide if he/she's a vandal or an idiot who really thinks that's relevant. thanks.Toyokuni3 (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be too bad in furniture, if sourced, even to a book on pets or furniture repair. It doesn't seem specific to chairs. I think I'd just give him an {{unsourced}} warning (I can't find the {{uw-}} tag at the moment). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

CarlHewitt SPI

Hello Arthur. At the above SPI, someone is trying to recall all the problematic editing that has occurred over the past three years, and you may have some recollection of that. It is argued that some individual IPs may be persistent enough to be worth blocking. EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

I'm wondering if you could really be serious here[10], and exactly what purpose you see in expressing such encouragement....

Do you really think these are correct[11]?:

• [AIT] has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to include significant errors.
• Justice Barton identified 9 significant errors within the film.
• ...discusses one of the scientific opinions on climate change, as well as one of the scientific opinions on ... [KDP: Whats the other ones?]
• The British High Court ruled there were 9 significant errors in the film.
• Gore failed to mention that the Earth has cooled recently
• Lord Monckton, a former Thatcher Government adviser and policy formulator has proven many of the claims of Gore to be incorrect

All of the above are either highly subtly incorrect or highly POV... For instance the British court did not identify 9 errors - they addressed 9 claims of errors (which everywhere in the court text is in scare-quotes), the ruling is quite clear in stating that most of these aren't errors, but that many of them have contextual issues, that aren't addressed in the movie. (for instance 20 feet is entirely correct, but without the context of a timescale, it may be misleading).

It is a good thing to encourage newbies - but without addressing the problems with their contributions - you are setting them up for a meet with a hard reality later, when they haven't learned what exactly is problematic in their editing... and thus are prone to continue along the same path. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, to take one of your sub-points, courts (at least, in civilized countries), do not use "scare quotes". They use "usage quotes" — quotes indicating that they are referring to the term as quoted.

And, one of the scientific opinions on climate change probably is more correct than the scientific opinion on climate change.

Without looking at the ruling (which I'm not sure I can download), the British High Court finding that the film could not be used in schools without some restrictions (clearly true, in many sources) suggests that they found errors in the film. I haven't looked for secondary sources describing the opinion as to what errors the court found. The NZ court did find some errors, according to secondary sources, but "9 significant errors" doesn't seem to be there, either.

The new editor's repeat of "9 significant errors", attributed to different speakers, strongly suggests that he hasn't looked at the ruling or secondary sources, either.

Proven is just non-NPOV, regardless of accuracy. I don't think it's accurate, but some secondary sources have used the term.

But, I may have mispoke. However, some of the points that he made were more accurate that what was there before, but were hopelessly non-NPOV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The judge did find 9 errors. Gore (and, in some cases, many scientists) dispute the claims that they are errors, but it would be incorrect to state that the judge did not find (in the sense of a legal finding) that there were 9 errors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The correct statement here is: The judge considered the claimants assertion of 9 'errors' - but didn't find that there was 9 errors. In fact in almost all cases he found that the 'errors' were not such, but instead were places where further explanation was needed. [either because of one-sided presentation, or because the complexity of the issue was too simplified]. He did not find 9 errors, neither in a legal or in any other sense. [read the court documents if you disbelieve] ... And that does make a rather large difference. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Then adjust our article on the case. It says (at the time I read it), "The judge described nine statements by Gore as departures from the scientific mainstream." Although quite possibly incorrect, it seems reasonable that a "departure from the scientific mainstream" might be called an "error". I suppose it's possible that whoever wrote that took it from the plaintiff's briefs, rather than from the finding, but it appears to be part of the decision, . — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I concede that the word quoted word "errors", as referred to in the decision (as referred to in that article), appears to mean "what the plaintiff called 'errors'", but the 9 that the judge listed seem to be what he calls "inaccuracies". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A "departure from mainstream" is not an error, unless you are willing to say that it is 100% that the mainstream is correct (and i rather think that you have a different point of view :-). Here are 3 departures from the mainstream, but of which you can't state that they are wrong: 1) Current hurricanes are influenced by global warming; 2) The Iris hypothesis (Lindzen); 3) cosmic rays influence clouds to a significant degree. I've corrected the Dimmock article back to the 'errors' version (which was overlooked in a vandal/POV revert in October) - those quotes are difficult to see in a diff ;) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've further adjusted it: There were more than 9 items which the plaintiff referred to as 'errors'; and the judge found 9 of them to be a departure from the scientific mainstream. The use of 'errors' to refer to the judge's decision, as opposed to the plaintiff's arguments, is misleading. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm

I share your concern about some of the people on the 99 range (as i've mentioned before) - but is article talkspace[12] the correct venue to vent such? As a side-issue from that, i'm rather concerned about the users who are using edit-comments to promote their viewpoints (ie. by stringing together various links not related to the edit). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps article talkspace isn't the appropriate venue, but there may not be one. Noting that a proposal on an article talk page is from an IP who probably would be (at least) under restriction if it were an editor, seems appropriate, even if that particular edit appeared (to someone, anyway), to be of good faith. I believe there have been discussions at ANI, but my recollection is that the IPs are too spread out to propose range blocking, (even though almost all edits from those specific IPs are global-warming related, they rarely return to the same IP) and the only other solution I can see would be to semiprotect all global warming articles (loosely defined). I suppose a filter could be devised to block all edits with a summary consisting only of links (internal and external) from an IP, but there's an editor with some form of autism (per his comment on his talk page) who also uses such edit summaries, who probably wouldn't understand what happenedif he accidentally logged out.

As a related question in regard that IP range, is there a (readonly?) bot which lists linked (not included) categories in articles; i.e. it detects [[:Category:climate change|climate change]], as opposed to [[Category:Climate change|Maldives]]? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Arthur,

I am updating Vaclav Smil's Wiki page and would like your opinion on the changes. I like to make sure i am doing it according to wiki rules.

Please advise.

Best, Olibroman 19:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olibroman (talk • contribs) 19:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your asking. With respect to your edits of 22 May (Pacific Daylight time): "The first non-American" is still not sourced, and the list of articles seems to be overkill to me. As his notability is not in question, only those articles which could support a statement which should be in the article should appear. (Yes, that sentence is difficult to parse.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

With respect to your edits of 20 May, [1] doesn't seem to say "Distinguished Professor" any more, and also appears to be Smil's own writings, so it might not be reliable; and [2] doesn't produce much of anything for me. A "People" search for "Smil" finds him to be a faculty member in Environment & Geography, but with no specified rank. But perhaps I'm not seeing everything you are on the web site. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me who owns www.vaclavsmil.com . If it's Smil or his publisher, the information may not be reliable, unless the publisher is considered a particularly reliable source. The lede of the article may also be a copy of that site, so may be a copyright violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for yor quick reply, Arthur.

I have designed his website but i will either list reliable sources for all the claims made here or delete it altogether. I will also pair down his articles to 20 (great suggestion).

Questions: can i delete a section that was posted earlier by someone else since new andmore accurate info is now available tehre?

I learned one thing form this discussion for future posts: this is not a promotional page!

Olibroman 21:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olibroman (talk • contribs)

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)

A Message

Please see [13] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[14] 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 [15][16][17]. 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)

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)

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANP 2010 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Give me a moment to put together detailed objections to all of your edits. There's no point if you don't stop editing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't wait Arthur. I can't wait. June 2010 (XYZ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANP 2010 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. It's possible I missed something, and I might not have given all the reasons why the edit may be unacceptable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Where? Where are they? (XYZ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANP 2010 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Antineoplaston#ANP 2010 detailed edit response. This allows other editors to comment. Please comment by number, rather than interspersing your comments near my specific comments, as that would soon make it impossible to determine who said what. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:26, 21 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)

I responded there, in part by asking for an example to justify your repeated claim that my mathematical edits were "wrong" or "left the article less correct". Jsondow (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

GetUp! article an advert?

hi arthur

why do you think it is an advert?

leo aka halloleo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halloleo (talk • contribs) 07:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Explained in Talk:GetUp!#Advertisement. Thank you for reminding me that it wasn't clear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Rejecting your deletion

Hi Arthur Rubin, 

I added new categories and some important lists of international rankings of South Korea. I don't understand why Arthur Rubin deleted this important list. As following his recommendation, I edited and added Edit summary of this article. I assume you deleted this because of its lackness of edit summary. Thus I did it. Please re-consider the deletion of this article. Thank you. Polk540 (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've proposed deletion of the article international rankings of South Korea. You may (on that article's talk page) give reasons why it should remain. Although I don't think it's a good idea, if it is to be included, the article South Korea should link to the article international rankings of South Korea, and not include the rankings as part of South Korea. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Supply Chain Management Degree Program Link

Dear Arthur, I would appreciate if you do not delete the link of "Masters program at University of Texas at Dallas" as; firstly it is not a spam and secondly it is helpful for the students interested in Supply Chain Management Degree program.

Thank you, Take Care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinesh18omy (talk • contribs) 03:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It is spam. Unless, of course, that program is recognized as the best (or one of the few) in the country. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

However, I didn't remove it, this time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

CFS page UK blood ban. CFS/ME is the official term, as the source says.

Hi Arthur

Not sure if you have had time to read the two sources I have provided. One mentions the ban, the other states the official name in the UK. The blood ban source at no time states what the official term is in the UK, only the second source, the Parliamentary Inquiry 2006. As I am sure you will agree, the UK Parliament is a reliable source. This is the official name, I have provided excellent sources, but if you are confused please contact the UK Government or NHS. One more thing, CFS/ME does not stand for two disease, it represents one, CFS/MEUYBS (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If the source for the blood restrictions says "CFS", then "CFS" it is in that context, regardless of the official name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, the source for the blood ban also uses the official term.UYBS (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Priimepatterns

not a reliable, or even reasonably credible, source

I have no problems with such a statement, but I wish you would look first and hold your gut reaction till after; you are likely to change your mind! The words symmetry and prime number distribution don't often get put in the same sentence, other than to state the two don't go together. www.primepatterns.wordpress.com - it's there for anyone to see. Credible? I am happy for people to look and comment! I think the words jawdropping, mindblowing and frankly unbelievable come to mind

WW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.240.44 (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

2010

in wikipedia across pages (for eg: in Months/days) the suffix is given amiss with many editors citing WP:MOS. In the interests of consistency.

At any rate, instead of saying "unhelpful" one should assume WP:AGF when its not blatant vandalism

But whatever, doesnt bother me at the end of the day ;)Lihaas (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I said, "unhelpful", not "vandalism". I shouldn't have used rollback.

Month/days are a special case, as specified in WP:MOS#Dates. This is a full sentence, and not a shorthand usually used, so that doesn't apply. Unless you can find another section of WP:MOS which applies, normal grammatical rules apply, which require that it be "2010th". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

0 (number) 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 0 (number). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 121.74.8.48 (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Noted. It wasn't necessary, as I warned you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history, I hadn't reverted three times whereas you had, and in fact your last edit where you all but request the article be reverted to your preferred version could easily be seen as a violation of the policy. My first edit was not a revert, obviously, you reverted this without a summary so I could not be sure of your objection, I reverted in my next edit with an explanation of my postion which I had failed to include in the first edit. In the next edit I took your comments into account, agreed, and made a compromise, and the next edit was an unrelated superficial change to another part of the section. All in all, I really only reverted once and then only because I had failed to provide a sufficient edit summary the first time.121.74.8.48 (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Tree shaping archives refactoring

Nice catch. Not sure I would have recognized that as what it was, and it was important, clearly. I need to study the bot edit diffs more carefully instead of taking them as gold. Thank you for watching that page. So quietly!? Duff (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Please consider commenting here Slrubenstein | Talk 14:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested a wording for the topic ban proposal - your input would be appreciated on that issue. I've also sent a note to the proposer. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

More questionable edits related to Seduction community

Smells like socks [18] [19]. Looks like the Mystery/Lovesystems people this time around. Do you know if anything has been done other than blocking spammers? --Ronz (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of anything else done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Pi vs. 2pi

I think a discussion of the relative merits of pi and 2pi as fundamental named constant, and the reason one was chosen over the other, is something which would be very fitting to be present on Pi. My recent contribution may not've been spectacular but I was hoping it'd be expanded on etc. Or do you genuinely disagree with the premise? 4pq1injbok (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It might be relevant, but it clearly shouldn't be in the lede.

And I do disagree with the premise, but that's not important. The important thing is that we would need a reliable source which is clearly a serious article to use as a reference. The Mathematical Intelligencer article is not clearly serious. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd expect to have a hard time finding serious sources if only because this sort of thing is entirely standard and beneath the notice of any modern serious mathematical writing. *shrug* 4pq1injbok (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Reversal of edit in "Gödel's incompleteness theorems"

Dear Arthur Rubin, I am puzzled by your reversal of my edit, on which you commented

“revert unsourced statements ABOUT the given reference. As he's living, it's also a BLP violation"

My understanding is that the living person you are referring to is Michio Kaku, whose book I referred to. Since I referenced his book, where the statement appears, I don't understand why you call it “unsourced”: would your objection be withdrawn if I included a page number? I am asking this for the purpose of better understanding Wikipedia practices. As for the article, I will try to include the essential technical point without referring to any people living or dead. Sincerely, AmirOnWiki (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel sorry for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.32.84.114 (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You wrote, essentially.

1. Kaku said Gödel's incompleteness theorem is not a problem because mathematicians avoid self-referential statements. (Ref Kaku)
2. However, the examples mentioned (elsewhere in this article) are not self-referential. (without references)
3. In fact, the Gödel sentence itself is not self-referential. (without references)

#3 is false. #2 is true, but it makes the paragraph a WP:SYNTHESIS violation unless some reliable source specifically refutes Kaku's statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Having read WP:SYNTHESIS, I believe that I understand your objection (re #2), which would apply a fortiori to #3. I do hold that #3 is true (and in fact implied by the existing article) but I will avoid the WP:SYNTHESIS trap and will not advance my position in the article. AmirOnWiki (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, you could have challenged me to provide sources within some reasonable time, rather than reverting the edit on the spot. I think that this would constitute a more constructive approach. AmirOnWiki (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not required, and not suggested in case of a potential BLP violation (if Kaku is still alive, anyway.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What's with the stalking?

Arthur: you appear to be stalking me and reverting several of my (unrelated) edits without any explanation on the Talk pages. One more and you'll get an ANI. --Noleander (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Almost all of your edits related to "Motives/Motivations of 9/11" are in violation of the 9/11 Arbcom sanctions. I should have restricted myself to reverting those, rather than your edits in probable violation of the Palestinian Arbcom ruling.

I don't understand your removal of a well-sourced section in Black people and the Latter Day Saint movement; your comments don't seem relevant to the deletion. If you intended to reinsert it elsewhere in the article, per your talk comments, I apologize for that revertion.

In my experience, though people who push fringe opinions in one field often due so in others. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop it

Stop it, Arthur. Your four reversions today of my four sets of see-also links from four articles cubic equation, quartic equation, quintic equation, and septic equation are not justified by your unexplained comment "revert unnecessary links". Many "see also" links are not vitally necessary—they are helpful to some readers.

Based on this as well as some of the entries in your talk page you clearly are trolling, which is "any deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. Trolling is a violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces and is often done to inflame or invite conflict." "Note that some behavior listed here [as trolling] has been taken as disruption of Wikipedia in Arbitration Committee decisions."

In addition, you appear to be wikihounding me, perhaps because I previously complained (here and here that you had engaged in unexplained reversions that you yourself ended up admitting were unjustified. "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If 'following another user around' is accompanied by ... disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."

The fact that you are trolling and wikihounding me is shown by the content-inconsistency but editor-consistency of your reversions. For example, in cubic equation, you deleted see-also links to sextic equation and septic equation because I had added them, but you did not delete see-also links to quartic equation and quintic equation because I was not the one who added them. Likewise, in quartic equation, you deleted see-also links to sextic equation and septic equation because they were added by me, but you did not delete the see-also links to cubic equation and quintic equation because they were not added by me. Thus you have disrupted my legitimate effort to create consistency in these see-also sections.

I have asked David Eppstein to arbitrate this. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I refused Duoduoduo's request, rather forcefully, on my own talk page [20]. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Related discussion at User talk:Fuhghettaboutit#Will you intervene?.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Iraq sanctions

Arthur: could you weigh in on a discussion involving your recent edits to Iraq sanctions, on the discussion page there? Thanks, DougHill (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

How dare you... aswell.

I can see from your archives that you are heavily biased, Jewish, and a troll. Perhaps you are trying to 'defend your faith' however it has no place here. You cannot subvert the meaning of words. It will never succeed.

Recently you removed one of my definitions. Why? Because it wasn’t referenced from the 'highly' credible Dictionary.com and many so called 'American'-English dictionaries. I have much experience with comparing these dictionaries with English ones, believe me, i wouldn’t use them to prop up a table. Most commonly, their grasp of the meaning of words is... shall we say... like that of a developing country. Most often circular definitions are the order of the day. And their neglect for the history of words causes many problems with their defining them.

"A government is that of the body politic which exercises governance over the territory which it claims to represent. 'Government' may be either within the territory or outside of it. It manages custodianship over all public property, administrates law and may prescribe public development. It may be comprised of several organisations and heads of state, or one, generally, representing the interests of natives to the territory through policy."

There is nothing wrong with what i attempted to add to the definition. I can only assume that it wasn’t to your liking. Well, its a good thing that your liking doesn’t matter, otherwise wikipedia would become nothing more than your propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.236.251 (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I removed your definition because it isn't published. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

9/11 cell phone use is bogus

I would like to know why you reverted my contribution to the September 11th attacks article, when it is widely known that cell phones can not be used in flight for various technical reasons.Ignorance is strength (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Because it's not true, if the plane is at a low altitude, although drop-out rates are higher if the plane is moving quickly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I'm sure you will agree that the aircraft were traveling at hundreds of miles per hour, and were not at low altitude until just before crashing; some of the purported calls took place while the aircraft were miles above the ground.Ignorance is strength (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been dealt with many times: cellphone calls from high altitude were most definitely possible, especially in analog mode. A 35,000 foot antenna, higher power in analog mode and the innate long range of analog cells made calls from airplanes possible at altitude. Most cellphones of the time could revert to analog mode from digital. You are applying current digital technology to something that happened almost ten years ago; the cell phone calls are documented and sourced - you are applying original research. Acroterion _(talk) 13:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying decade/century confusion

Author, please comment prior to reverting material that was correcting unverified information with verified information on the xx90s year articles, per both Decade and Century articles. Right now, there is a confusion about the year where Centuries start and where "decades" start. They are not a one-for-one as some colloquially assume. This confusion resulted in an illogical situation where the list of years (as Wikipedia articles) contradicted with the actual definition of a referenced term "century". My edits simply clarified this per general consensus on both decade and century articles without addressing the general debate over the Millennium date, which is a much bigger issue all together. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 20:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your changes, and they should have been discussed before you made them. I've now opened a discussion section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Last decade of century. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

1) There's no reason to discuss the addition of referenced material covering a NPOV. 2) I did start a discussion! However, thank you for expanding that discussion. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 20:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

2012 phenomenon

Here's an odd sequence of events:

• 20:18, 8 July 2010 - Chambers109 (talk · contribs) created.
• 20:19, 8 July 2010 - JulesElise (talk · contribs) edits John Major Jenkins.
• 21:29, 12 July 2010 - Chambers109 makes a controversial edit to same, which you revert.
• 22:40, 12 July 2010 - JulesElise reverts you, back to Chambers109's edit.

JulesElise also seems to be supporting Chambers109 on 2012 phenomenon, reimplementing the same text as Chambers109 after you twice reverted those edits. I find this very odd given that Chambers109 was created 1 minute before JulesElise first edited within the subject. Yworo (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Reported to SPI, for what it's worth. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Melissa Farley Edits

I am trying to add sourced content, remove unsourced content, and generally make useful edits/revisions to the Melissa Farley page. However, I see you're undoing a lot of the edits I was making. Let me explain further about these edits, in the interest of reaching consensus and improving parts of this article.

I still think there should be at least a small statement about Ronald Weitzer's public and professional position on prostitution. Readers are entitled to know something more about the person who is criticizing Melissa Farley other than just that he is a "sociologist." Weitzer has advocated for a two-track system of prostitution in numerous sources. I do not think it violates BLP to identify Weitzer's stated professional position on prostitution. It is a documented fact that he holds these views. I did provide one such source (something he himself wrote) and you removed it, along with my added content edit. http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/LT_weitzerRDY_06-19-09_RIEMNEJ_v17.3e9356f.html Can you please explain why? Here's another: http://prostitution.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=000223 If Weitzer's criticisms of Farley's views/studies on prostitution are to be placed on Farley's page, then in the interest of NPOV I feel his own publicly-stated views on prostitution should be briefly disclosed there as well.

The paragraph beginning "Farley has also been criticized for accepting significant funding from anti-prostitution organization..." continues to need significant revision. The first sentence is entirely unsourced and in fact it does not even say who is doing the criticizing. I do not believe that anonymous, unsourced, and blanket accusations such as this are allowed on Wikipedia, especially on a BLP page. If you go on to read the content of footnote 14, you will see that Jill Brenneman does not criticize Farley for her funding sources. She doesn't even mention it. The bottom line is that there are no verifiable sources or documentation for the content in the first sentence, so the statement needs to be removed entirely and quickly (especially since this is BLP). Furthermore, footnote 14 provides this factual information: "Her research was supported 70% by Prostitution Research & Education and 30% by the Trafficking in Persons Office of the US State Dept." I believe NPOV requires both grant sources to be identified in a neutral statement just like this. The current writing is biased toward a particular POV because only one of the funding agencies is identified, followed by an unsourced accusation against that agency. The current assertion that the government TIP office has "an outspoken policy which conflates prostitution with trafficking" is speculative, biased, and unsourced. It should be removed.EconProfessor (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see your point in regard the criticism of Farley, but it does clearly violate BLP to have Weitzer's views on prostitution without a reliable third-party assertion of relevance. I can see your point about the funding sources, but both funding sources organizations have been criticized by mainstream sources, in addition to the pro-prostitution sources as you claim Weitzer is, as being absurdly anti-prostitution. That the TIP office associates prostitution with trafficking is obvious (so much so that the organization shouldn't be named without that being stated), and that association is not supported by facts. Whether "conflates" is appropriate is a difficult decision. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this needs to be discussed at Talk:Melissa Farley. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but I would like to continue my conversation with Mr. Rubin here for now. It is well-known that Weitzer and Farley have fundamentally different views on prostitution. This difference makes Weitzer's own position on prostitution relevant enough to disclose here when presenting his critique on Farley. Weitzer's views vis-a-vis Farley's views are documented on his Wikipedia page, as well as places such as Pro/Con which place them on opposite sides of the debate. http://prostitution.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=120 He is not just some random sociologist who has independently reviewed Melissa Farley's work. Weitzer's views on prostitution should be at least briefly mentioned so that casual readers are aware that he publicly holds an opposing position to Farley. It should not be a violation of BLP to re-state what has been judged acceptable to publish on Weitzer's own Wikipedia page.

Regarding TIP, I would like to reword the "conflate" phrase because there is no reliable source for that claim.EconProfessor (talk) 02:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider any edits officially "discussed" or consensus reached unless it takes place between all parties involved in the editing process. That discussion should be taking place at Talk:Melissa Farley. I'll state that I have no objection per se of further contextualization of Weitzer's views and positions IRT to those of Farley. The way they have this has been done by previous editors was tendentious, which is why no consensus was reached. Similarly, I think the views on voluntary vs involuntary prostitution with US TIP agencies are very relevant and the context of how Farley's arguments where used as arguments for the policies of those agencies are very relevant. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome

Sampletalk (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Arthur, Thank you for the welcome. I think you are right about removing my additions to "First Order Logic" and "Church-Turing Thesis" articles. Actually, I was trying to attract a public attention to this research, and Wikipedia is not the right place to do this. Though, I think this research has deep philosophical implications, can be easily described by simple analogies (like the comparison of conventional vs. alternative medicine), and paradoxically is not well understood by professionals.

Regards,

Andrew Gleibman (Sampletalk), Israel

Edits

STOP CHANGING ALL OF MY EDITS. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THEM. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I pointed to specific guidelines showing what's wrong with the ones I reverted today. Until you pointed this out, I was only removing your inappropriate addition to 2038, but I see other minor errors, now that you've brought your edit history to my attention. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

about Eulerian path

"proof is probably accurate, but requires a source, per Wikipedia rules", why does my contribution violates Wikipedia rules?

I did add a source: Instructor's manual. But the lemma I cited is just a sentence in the Instructor's manual. Actually in Instructor's manual, it is just a claim. I hope you can give a solution, because I think the proof is very hard to find, and useful for someone, maybe. And I was not copying all the content in the Instructor's manual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugthink (talk • contribs) 08:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

There is debate as to whether Wikipedia should have proofs, or whether they should be relegated to Wikibooks or Wikiversity. In any case, for a proof to be given, it must be in a reliable source (the instructor's manual may not be, unless published), and be notable or interesting. The book in question, being from MIT Press, is probably reliable, but proofs in the instructor's manual may not be as well-checked. (I know that the instructor's manual for my late mother's logic book was not as well checked as the book, itself.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

{{frac}} in Number

Hi Arthur,

I see in Number you have changed my additions of {{frac}} to {{fracText}} with the edit summary that "consensus seems to be that fractions are [used in this manner] in math articles".

I am more than happy to accept that; I changed them as part of the GA review because there was not specifically anything on the talk page to indicate this consensus, so defaulted to MoS. Could you please point me to the consensus of which you speak?

I have no doubt you are right; I myself was a little surprised that this had not come up before. A comment about the consensus at the GA review would be very handy, and I am more than happy to accept it.

Incidentally I've raised the subject at Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Fractions as it seems to me that all it says is to put fractions in "fractional form" without defining what that is, and even in the section WP:MOSNUM#Fractions only says what to do about common fractions, which leaves us high and dry dealing with other fractions – for myself I would not regard a⁄b as a common fraction, for example.

It's probably bad form anyway to say that the rationals are of the form a⁄b without saying that a and b are integers, and some would say they have to have other properties e.g. being the least common multiple, the denominator being a nonzero natural and so on, which is covered here adequately but not in the table saying a rational is of that form. That's probably OK, the table is there to summarise rather than define.

But I am also a little queasy that the words "fraction" and "rational" seem to be used rather interchangeably in this article.

I'm happy to move this to the article's talk page if you think better, but thought I would get your opinion first.

Thanks for all your hard work here and everywhere (at least one editor notices it). Si Trew (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, where's that reference coming from?

No big deal. Si Trew (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I see now you've commented at the GA review, thank you very much for that. There probably needs to be a link, then, from MOSNUM to MOSMATH, do you think? Si Trew (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Having thought about this, I am not sure that Number should be considered as a mathematical article anyway. I thought it was supposed to be for a more general audience than just mathematicians. Si Trew (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

At the present time, WP:MOSNUM#Fractions specifies that {{frac}} is available, but doesn't specify say that it should or should not be used. (It also has an incorrect comment about numeric pasting: N+p⁄q pastes as "N p⁄q", but the text of the guideline says "N+p/q".) Further comments at WT:MOSNUM#Fractions, as you suggest, but I'll add pointers at WT:MATH and WT:MOSMATH, if not already there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on whether or not the opening paragraph of 200x articles should have an in-line citation pointing to a useful and valid reference.

I have started a discussion here [21], and I look forward to reading your input. Mantes (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Driving under the influence ‎

Wow, Im bad at this. I'm a dui lawyer, thats all I do, and I agree with you that stuff is taken from cites; but if you read closely, youll see that the conclusions drawn are completely unsupported by the numbers; in fact DUI numbers have stayed stagnant for fifteen years without any adjustments. dr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidrosenbloom (talk • contribs) 03:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I realize the section Driving under the influence#Reports from Public Health Law Researchis untrue as a whole, but we're only attributing it to that organization. If you can provide the real facts, supported by what we call reliable sources, go ahead, and we can kill that absurd section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit on Virtual Reality Therapeutic uses

Why did you delete all the new edits, many of which are related to latest research? Ahtcan (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

They appeared not to have reliable sources; "the latest research" frequently doesn't. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I probably should have just tagged it, but it also seems excessive to source a full paragraph to a single source, even if it were reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The links are to a research centre dedicated to the field in question and has publications in research journals. There is nothing in wiki policies which states what is excessive sourcing - do correct me if I am wrong though. So if you don't mind, I think I will revert back. The keeping current document has about 30+ published research articles as references and you consider this unreliable? Please respond. All I am doing is updating something which is severely outdated... If you have an issue with "latest research" I'll gladly expand it bit more. - Ahtcan (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

We can only use CanChild as a reference only if it has a reputation for fact-checking. I can't confirm that, so I've tagged it. I don't think you should remove the tag without consultation with other editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand what a scholarly source is? CanChild is a research centre affiliated with a University and publishes articles in various periodicals. The link that is given is a review of the research and references close to 30+ OTHER research papers alongside its own. Ahtcan (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't know it's affiliated with the university, only that it's located at that university, and I have not seen evidence that it has a reputation for fact-checking. As a parallel example, even if an organization such as the Union of Concerned Scientists or the American Council on Science and Health were affiliated with a university, it still wouldn't be a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that doesn't even make sense. It is located at the university but not affiliated? I have yet to hear of any competent university which offers 'office' space. I am going to ask like I asked before, please show me from WP guidelines that this fits unreliable source, WP:Source I have also started a discussion over this matter to get the perspective of other editors. Ahtcan (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I can give examples of institutions located at a university but not affiliated. In some cases, a distinguished professor who runs an outside consulting firm is a allowed to work on the university grounds. We need evidence that it's an academic centre, and it still might not be the best source, if its publications are not peer-reviewed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My issue with you is that you do not seem to read or do your part in due-diligence. Just because it is something that you are not aware of, you have taken no part in establishing that it isn't so. The about us page located here or the fact that right at the bottom the copyright of the web page is to the University. Let's assume for an instance that this particular document is not peer-reviewed, by WP policies found here, it can still be accounted as reliable considering that the individuals writing the document have peer-reviewed material published. Ahtcan (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's nice of you to confirm that you are affiliated with CanChild. Even so, it's the (usually unidentified) individual authors of the documents who would have to have peer-reviewed publications in the field, rather than the institution, in order for WP:SPS to be met. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I am just appalled right now. All authors at CanChild have peer-reviewed publications. Secondly, I don't understand how you have asserted I am affiliated with CanChild? I have just pointed you to the facts that there is an About Us page, and the copyright to counter your claim about affiliation and 'renting' space. Ahtcan (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:The Age of Stupid#end of release_section

Howdy, left you a message regarding our edit disagreement at Talk:The Age of Stupid/Archive_1#end of release section would love your thoughts (still think it isn't in the reference) :). James (T C) 19:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

John Major Jenkins

Hello, I thought you'd be interested in the proposed change to the John Major Jenkins page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskimo.the (talk • contribs) 02:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you please join the discussion on the Generations page and Generation Z

Hi. I have attempted to revert edits back to your version, but an editor keeps changing back the dates for Generation Z with only one book as a source to back up his claims. All sources I have seen, including magazines, demographical research, and technological magazines all use the mid-1990s as the starting date for Generation Z, especially 1995. The editor making these changes is 3bulletproof16 (talk). I'd like to see what your opinion is on this. Thanks. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the user seems to be mistaken on the number of sources being used to cite the early 1990's date. See this by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, or simply this by the California Teachers Association for some examples. I believe the user failed to read the citations next to the dates, though he claims only "one book" -whatever that means- was used.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 20:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Caesarion

This was probably a waste of time, but I did what I could. Tiderolls 23:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

User Name

Hi, I am quite new here, i'm very interested in the project and looking forward to working with it.

I though ran over something in the user name policy, that said that you should not use tha name of a well known person.

My real name is Michael Nicholas Jackson. It's not me who gave myself that name - blame my parents.

I would though ask you to change the username to nicky86, if that's possible, please. MichaelJackson231 (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The correct form for that is file an application at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple, if User:Nicky86 is available. Please include what you wrote here in your reasons. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Nicky86 seems to have been created and made one edit on 19 May 2009, so it is unlikely to be accepted. Perhaps another number? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was just thinking about if i'm not allowed to use my username, if I then can useanother.

If I can keep the username, then I wouldn't care too much. MichaelJackson231 (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, place a note on your User page as to your real name. In that case, it's likely that if you get tagged for a user name violation, you will have an opportunity to change it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I think I will keep my username, unless somebody tag me for a violation. MichaelJackson231 (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment

I think it would be gracious of you to remove the personal comment about Hewitt, part of this edit. Surely we can explain why the material is inappropriate without commenting on the person. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply ping

Hi, I've replied at Portal talk:Contents. Sorry for the length. Please feel free to ask anything, there, or here, or my talkpage. I want us all to be having a discussion; not an argument, as this topic keeps devolving into! Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Limited infinity.

Not to understand tempts to find out. Mathematics represents reality in the immaterial form. You say 'it's possible there's something there'. There is plenty, please ask. P.S. In the article 2n or 1/2n should read 2 or 1/2 to the power of 'n'. KK (213.158.199.138 (talk) 09:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC))

Edit summaries on reverts

It is very important to use the edit summary when you revert, especially when you're reverting non-anons. It helps avoid edit wars and encourages discussion, so please try to remember to use the edit summary. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to reinforce that. You have a habit of failing to say why you are reverting—your page is full of people asking you why. It's not polite, and Wikipedia policy encourages us to explain our reverts in the summary box. I'm surprised that after you did two unexplained (and ill-conceived) reversions of one of my edits, causing me the inconvenience of having to come here to ask you why you were doing it, you are still not always doing it right. It's easy, and you'd save yourself some hassles too! Duoduoduo (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from reverting edits which are clearly not vandalism without leaving a short edit summary. You did this at least four times today: 1, 2, 3 and 4; some of those edits actually improved the respective article!

The standard summary is only intended for undoing disruptive edits. Seeing one's good-faith edit reverted and labeled as vandalism is disappointing and might turn good editors away, especially new ones. You should know that, especially since you are an administrator. – Adrianwn (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Numbers 1 and 2 clearly are not intended for the improvement of the encyclopedia, consisting primarily of retaining the link but placing a completely different and inappropriate pipe. The rest of the edits seem reasonable, but [[physically attractive|Symmetrical]] doesn't seem plausible.

Number 3: his additions of anniversaries to year articles have already been reverted with edit summaries and notes on his talk page that WP:YEARS specifies that anniversaries are not listed in year articles. WP:AGF only goes so far.

Number 4: The change appears to be the addition of an external link to a #See also section, which is inappropriate. However, it may have just been misguided, so I should have commented.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

1/2) I disagree. The new formulation sounds better to me, and the linked article exists. If you didn't like the link text, why didn't you simply change just that? I know that clicking "revert" is simpler and quicker, but still, incorporating and improving other people's edits is more beneficial than just removing them.

3) True; I didn't have a closer look at this user's history.

4) It is not a See also section, but a list of implementations. The Alligator (software) article has been deleted, so replacing the red link with the URL was the right thing to do (either that, or removing the entry from the list, for which I don't see a reason). – Adrianwn (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Generation Z

Hi. I was wondering what your thoughts were on the recent date changes on the Generation Z (as well as Generations page. The current change lists early 1990s as the start, but that runs into Generation Y. I made it clear on the discussion page on both those pages that 1995 was the date most used by demographers, researchers, media, etc. Apparently, that editor seems to think I am going by dates in "my book," whatever that means, and accused me of vandalism. I thought it was wrong for him to change the dates in the opening paragraph of this article without any discussion. His sources are only one or two, and one of them is a site for parents and pregnancy. I don't think that is a reliable source. I thought since you contributed to the article, you would be interested in giving your views. I also let other editors know about this. Thanks for your contributions. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wolfview (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

/* Training (Military/Medical) */ removed the direct references to OLIVE for the general virtual world statements. This was an accident since OLIVE was the prime example. This is an assignment.

Mr. Ollie's talk page isn't available currently and he was the last person to edit the page so I wanted to ask you.

I'm trying to figure out what I need to do to make my page appropriate. I have now removed all references to specific virtual worlds and companies and yet it got removed again. I need it to stay up for my class.

The assignment was to add to the article the training section to discuss virtual worlds in training. What can I do to make it acceptable?

Thanks,

jjoseph177 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjoseph177 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

1. The "See also" section should not be there until an article on OLIVE is created (and kept; as I'm not sure what name it should be under if it were to exist, I can't tell whether it has existed.) If it exists, it should also be linked from Olive (disambiguation).
2. There needs to be a third party reliable source that OLIVE is a notable virtual world. (You apparently have a third party source that it is a virtual world, but not that it's notable.)
3. You need to write the text about OLIVE in a neutral manner, not looking like advertising copy.
4. You need to get consensus for point 2, per WP:BRD.

That's a start, anyway. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Arthur,

I incorporated your suggestions and Mr. Ollie removed it again. Can you help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjoseph177 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Heads-up

I made a complaint at WP:ANI about the edits by Hiberniantears which you reverted at Richard C. Hoagland. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#Vandalism from Hiberniantears. You may wish to weigh in on one side or the other. __meco (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Phipps

I have reverted your removal of the Phipps Conservatory & Botanical Gardens external link. It clearly does not violate WP:ELNO 11 as the video was made by a professional news magazine production syndicated nationally on PBS. I have further explained my reasoning on the the article's discussion page. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Potential for consensus

Hi. I thought we were getting somewhere, and then TT had to go off on another no-compromise rant! Sigh.

Is there any chance you could reply to my first question, above his comments, at that thread? Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to get back to it tomorrow. I have a course to go to this evening (PDT = UTC-7). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Twin prime conjecture

Hello, I (anonymously) edited the redirection "Twin prime conjecture" -> "Twin_prime#Polignac.27s_conjecture" to go only to the "Twin prime"-page, but you changed it back. My reason for changing it is that the whole article, more or less, is about the twin prime conjecture (it is mentioned already in the second paragraph and several times later), and I think that somebody searching for "twin prime conjecture" is not looking for Polignac's conjecture (which has its own page, where "twin prime conjecture" links to the "Twin prime" page). Mathboy (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I'll put it back. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of 1

You might be interested in this message on User talk:213.158.199.139:

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! On Talk:1 (number), you contributed an essay on "The meaning of '1'." The purpose of talk pages is improving the article, not general discussion of the article's topic. So I have moved your essay to Talk:1 (number)/Essays. Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia. --Macrakis (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The Giving Pledge

The Giving Pledge is an LLC with its own website. Citing primary sources is allowed. Thanks. 67.101.5.165 (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. It's about living persons, so it requires a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong. Signing The Giving Pledge includes making freely available on that organization's website a letter from each of those who pledge. I appreciate the fact that you understand the wikirules, but please look more closely into a particular website before you criticize its use as a references. Thanks. 67.101.5.165 (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

How do we know it's their letter. No dice. Unless the organization qualifies as a reliable source, for other reasons, it's no good. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Use the same naming convention for all the subpages (eom) -TT

Interesting approach. Seems generally reasonable, although we can argue where Outlines fits in the templates. May I suggest you place a pointer on each of the talk pages of subarticles to be moved? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A pointer. Yes. Good idea. Will do.

Where "Outlines" fit in the menu and footer is a good topic for another discussion thread.

BTW, please respond to the proposal thread. Thanks.

The Transhumanist 20:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I replied to your reply there. The Transhumanist 21:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

See Portal:Contents/Index.

The Transhumanist 21:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Explaining reverts

Hi. I notice from your contributions that you seem to do a fair bit of vandal-patrolling - bravo for that. Often, when reverting, you commendably give a reason for your reverts. Please would you consider turning 'often' into 'nearly always'. Thanks in advance, Trafford09 (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I was meaning in future Edit Summaries. Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've appreciated your comments about the Race and intelligence ArbCom case.

Hi, Arthur,

I just wanted to say thanks for your recent comments (and earlier comments) in the ArbCom case file on Race and intelligence. I'm very much of a newbie here and I have learned about a lot of subtleties by reading your posts. I see by surfing by that you also edit articles about mathematics. I wish I had more familiarity with the sources to do more editing of those—rather, I rely on those to improve my knowledge as I know work as an elementary math teacher in supplemental classes for gifted students. Your work in looking after those articles is much appreciated by math learners like me. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Trotter Prize (Texas A&M)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Trotter Prize (Texas A&M), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trotter Prize (Texas A&M). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wolfview (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What?

Just wondering what this was about. The subject was clearly listed in the target article. The entry is a valid use of a dab page especially as the two Steve Jones get mixed up frequently. Dawnseeker2000 17:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. There was a lot of vandalism at Steve Jones, mostly at what is now Steven E. Jones's credentials. Your addition seems as valid a use as any. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't revert without stating reasons in Edit Summary

Hi. May I ask you why in this edit, again you didn't state in the Edit Summary your reason for reverting? Trafford09 (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I gave a reason previously when reverting the same edit, and have given a reason again when reverting the same edit. Do I need to give a reason each time I revert the same edit? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair point - but there were 7 intervening edits between your first & 2nd revert, so there's always a risk that such a revert is misinterpreted (& I hadn't seen your subsequent edit), so it never hurts to say e.g. "see my last revert" or "see article's talk page" or something similar. I'll chill a bit now :) Trafford09 (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Atheist organizations

It is an atheist affiliated organization as is made clear on its website. Freakshownerd (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That's (1) synthesis, and (2)irrelevant.

1. The Free Inquiry Group is an organization of atheists, but that requires a separate reference.
2. The comment is Park's opinion, and only notable for being Park's opinion, not for where it's published.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think it's notable? I haven't seen it noted anywhere except a primary source that is an atheist group's publication. Why are you trying to hide that context and remove proper attribution? Freakshownerd (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've answered above. The group's attribution (which, as an aside, you have wrong; it's an organization of "American atheists"; "American Atheists" would refer to a specific group) is not relevant. Park's credentials are relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You haven't explained why that opinion is notable, or why if a primary sourced opinion is notable why it's source shouldn't be fully attributed. Why is only that one professor's opinion included in the article and the opening paragraphs? Freakshownerd (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you review Robert L. Park's page? He's a noted critic of pseudoscience, making him qualified to comment on pseudoscience (i.e. intelligent design). He wrote Voodoo Science (an excellent, and very readable book by the way), in addition to his many other activities. The only reason I included that commentary is because it was made by Park. I don't give a fig (AHAHAHAHA) for the publication or society itself, it is the fact that Park is notable, a relevant expert in the area, that his commentary is worth including. Park could have published this on his blog and it would have been notable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Noted by whom? He's a physics professor who has written a couple of hit pieces against positions he doesn't agree with. He doesn't hold a candle to any of the noted scientists recognized by the Trotter prize and he isn't particularly reknowned for anything, as his article makes clear. Director of public information at a physics group? Not exaclty Nobel worthy I'd say. You gents are in clear violation of wp:undue and your refusal to even note where these views are coming from is telling about the level of honestly you think appropriate. Find a secondary source commenting on Park's views of the Trotter and then we'll talk. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, even if he were a non-notable physics professor, his science credentials would far exceed that of the award recipients. WLU's comment above covers most of what I would have said, otherwise. In any case, this should be on the talk page, rather than here. I do apologize for not bringing it up on the talk page, myself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the Nobel committee doesn't share your opinion. Please be mindful of wp:undue and the need for secondary sources. Opinion blogs and newsletters from atheist groups aren't terribly useful sources when it comes to writing an encyclopedia. Freakshownerd (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The Nobel committee didn't give Crick his prize for his work on "Information, Complexity, and Inference", or on his work bringing together science and religion - which the Trotter Prize is for. The Trotter Prize looks like it's trying to garner credibility because "look, we gave it to a nobel prize winner"! Which has about as much to do with science as an honorary degree has to do with an actual degree. Giving someone a prize after they have their Nobel is plucking the low-hanging fruit. Giving someone a prize before they get their Nobel, that might be worth talking about, or not. And further, giving a prize to William Dembski is not something to brag about. The man writes dishonest creationism tracts to the already-converted.

Most of your comments suggest that you didn't seem to grasp the relevance of Park's criticisms of pseudoscience, nor of our comments regarding the source versus the author. In some cases there is a clearly correct position - and it's not on Dembski's side. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:Template changes

Thanks for pointing that out to me. I didn't realize that the template was so poorly coded that it would spill all its guts out like that if substituted. I fixed the problem, but I didn't find that the template was being used on any articles, just archived talk pages. User:Plastikspork went ahead and fixed the parameters for me. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I did not WP:AGF, but substituting templates (even templates which should be substituted) and nominating them for deletion is not uncommon. (As for the template within my userspace, that was a copy of the real template so I could work on getting things right without worrying about damaging Wikipedia. Normally, it's not a good idea to update those, even to correct renamed templates, without informing the user, in case he/she is still working on it. In my case, it was old, so I don't mind.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Confused

Dear Arthur, I am confused, I have been told several times not to use trade names. I corrected Kværner-process to Dry Arc process because I will also be adding another posting on a Submerged Arc process. If the two are not properly differentiated there will be confusion.

I am new to this and am doing what I was told by your colleagues, thanks for your help. Globalreach1 (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

In general, we are not supposed to use trade names. However, "Dry Arc process" and "Submerged Arc process" are commonly used nor descriptive (or, to be precise, their being descriptive for the processes in question is controversial), so we have no choice but to use the trade name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

GPS and relativity

Thanks for this revert. I'm not sure whether we should say definitively that GPS is not affected measurably by relativity or not ... my mind is open. But I'd like any claims that it is or isn't to be backed by a verifiable source. I'll let readers decide whether to believe any particular source. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Giving Pledge as a reliable source

As you know, you challenged the reliability of the official website of The Giving Pledge, and raised the issue at WP:BLPN#The Giving Pledge. The full discussion is there, and any response to my message here, should be made there, since we both prefer such discussions to be kept to a single place. But I'm drawing your attention to that noticeboard because I want to be sure that you didn't miss the following direct response to your comments.

I don't see any evidence that the web site is reliable for anything except the organization's press releases. I admit it's unlikely that they would say anything libelous about their donors (even though, being supported by Bill Gates, they may have an impressive legal force at their command), but we are more restricted in making unsupported statements than the law allows. My take is, until a consensus is established here, we should only list pledgers if that pledge is reported by news media, or clearly by the pledgers themselves. For many of the ones you've added, reliable sources for the pledge are available. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

We use cites like this all the time for uncontroversial claims like "so and so serves on the board of XYZ foundation" or "so and so is an associate editor of a journal". Even when another source is available, that doesn't prevent us from using the source. We can just cite both, helping the reader along to the charity org (especially if the newspaper doesn't include a hyperlink). This isn't and shouldn't be a controversial subject, we don't need to read WP:RS parsimoniously. Protonk (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, as you can observe at the BLPN, Protonk (talk · contribs) isn't the only one who disputes your assessment of The Giving Pledge's reliability. If you don't raise any further issues at the BLPN, I trust you'll end your practice of reverting good faith edits that cite The Giving Pledge as the source. Thanks. 67.101.7.201 (talk), formerly editing as 67.101.5.165 (talk · contribs) 21:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see anyone other than Protonk saying that the web site is reliable. Even if it were, the statement being controversial would mean that, unless we can find conventionally reliable sources, the information should not be in the article, even if the {{vc}} tag is not appropriate. (I especially state that the 95% claim attached to mere list of pledgers is just wrong.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw that you're still participating at the BLPN, thanks. Since we disagree about what Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs) and Arxiloxos (talk · contribs) said, I've posted messages on their talk pages asking them to also continue participating at the BLPN and help bring this to resolution. 67.101.7.100 (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning up the outlines

You expressed some concern over outlines, and specifically about some of them that you thought could use some improvement.

In your opinion, which outlines need the most work?

What improvements are needed?

I'm available to work on them.

I look forward to your reply.

The Transhumanist 00:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

In-universe

Hi,

Regarding this revert: >90% of the entries on the page concern events which happen in fictional works. {{In-universe}} seemed to be the most appropriate tag to work on that. I wasn't aware that date articles were exempt from the usual rules on in-universe content. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if the "usual rules on in-universe content" were appropriate, the associated category Category:Articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction is clearly wrong. But I don't see those rules as being violated, here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a violation of WP:WAF, although some of the entries in year articles have excessive detail. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? Three-quarters of the entries make no explicit reference to the event being fictional. Isn't that the whole point of the tag and category in question? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The section is called "Fictional events". It's hard to be much more explicit than that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Wouldn't you know it, but I missed that header! I'd just scanned down the list of dates. Sorry to have bothered you! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Alternative names for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

I attempted to add the following to the 'Alternative names' page.

CFS/ME

- CFS/ME is the official term used in the UK. The Minister of State, Department of Health, has stated that "we accept the World Health Organisation's classification of ME as a neurological condition of unknown cause.

Unfortunately Sciencewatcher keeps removing this, and has now been joined by WLU. It is the same source and information I used to back up the official name on the 'CFS' page, and the acceptance of the WHO classification is stated by the Health Minister in Parliament. As shown on page 5 of the Parliamentary Inquiry CFS/ME is the official term used in the UK.

Sciencewatcher keeps stating that Parliament is not a reliable source, which clearly it is considering it is the Government speaking for the NHS, NICE, MRC, & The Blood Service, which they control. Basically it is a ridiculous argument.

The alternative names page should have this information, as clearly it is an official name.

Arguments I have used against their POV on the talk page :

Kings College - Kings college are not Parliament and still have had to use the official term for their heading, CFS/ME. Also, Parliament controls the NHS and therefore the official term, unless you are saying that they are lying, which of course would be ridiculous. Meaction UK - Not relevant to the facts. WHO - Is not relevant to the official term used in the UK. It is however relevant to the UK classification, which is neurological in accordance with the WHO ICD-10. Parliamentary Inquiry - States that CFS/ME is the official term. (Use of any other name is not relevant to the facts, as they state that the official term is CFS/ME) Parliamentary document - The statement is not the opinion of a single parliamentarian. It is a statement by the Health Minister on behalf of the NHS. (ie. NICE, MRC, UK Blood service) The Health Minister at no time states which is the official term out of the alternative names she uses. DWP - Is controlled by the Parliament. This issue is not what other names are used elsewhere, but what is used officially in the UK. As proven, UK Parliament states the official term to be CFS/ME. NICE - The official guidelines use the official term, CFS/ME.

Again, Parliament has stated that "...hence we have used the term CFS/ME. We have used this term as it is the recognised term in the UK." There it is in black and white. Again, Parliament has stated that they accept the WHO classification of CFS/ME as neurological, they have not said that it is a neurological condition, but that they accept the WHO classification. Black and white fact again.

Annette Brooke is not the Health Minister so I suggest you re-read the source. The Health Minister, Gillian Merron, speaking for the DOH & NHS, states "I want first to put on the record that we accept the World Health Organisation's classification of ME as a neurological condition of unknown cause. " Fact.

This has no bearing on the ME, CFS, CFIDS, or PVF sections. It is about the official term in the UK.

As this is a world page, it has to reflect the terms used throughout the world. CFS/ME is the offical term in the UK, and therefore needs it's own section. It appears that you are ignorant to how the UK Parliament & NHS work. Parliament speaks for them, they control them, and all other bodies within the NHS. I again suggest you re-read the sources provided very slowly.

I would again appreciate it if you could take a look at this.

Many thanks UYBS

—Preceding unsigned comment added by UYBS (talk • contribs) 23:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles.
• The following editors are topic-banned from race and intelligence articles, broadly construed:
  • Mathsci (by consent)
  • David.Kane
  • Captain Occam
  • Mikemikev
• Mikemikev, who was indefinitely blocked as a result of an ANI discussion during the case proceedings, is site-banned for 12 months. Until his ArbCom ban expires, he may only appeal his block to the Arbitration Committee, via the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. After 12 months, he may choose to appeal the ban to either the Arbitration Committee or to the community.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

NW (Talk) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Green New Deal

Dear Arthur,

the page Green New Deal I feel it definitely requires more information, it is made of just one concept with regards to the creation of the Green New Deal without considering the developments whatsoever. I feel it should have more information on how it has progressed to what the Green New Deal is today rather than just mentioning where it was born. Just a thought, let me know your views.

Thanks and regards Spottiswoode —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spottiswoodestreet (talk • contribs) 16:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps in a different section; definitely not in the lede. It should be noted that all the information you added is from the EEC website, although it's possible some is reprinted from other sources. That may not be the best source for developments, unless, of course, the EEC coined the term. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Politics of global warming (United States)

With respect to Politics of global warming (United States) please make yourself familiar with the three revert rule. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Tags

When adding tags, as you did here for example, and the issue is not immediately obvious can you add you concerns to the article talk page? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor edits

re:

"A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions: typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearrangement of text without modification of content, etc."

from WP:MINOR. --Gwern (contribs) 10:41 29 August 2010 (GMT)

That one was intended as a "revert meaningless" (but not vandalism) edit, which is considered "minor" by default. If there was a way to make "rollback" not be minor, I would probably do that.

However, your comment is not suitable for an invisible comment; but I should have moved it to the article talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It is the bad craftsman who blames his tools. If you know your tools are lying, and you choose to use them anyway, then the blame is yours. I notice you did it again.

And as it happens, my comment was 100% suitable for a hidden comment; I'm surprised I have to tell such an experienced editor as yourself this, but I guess guidelines are not your thing - Help:Hidden text specifically says that an acceptable use of comments is "Preparing small amounts of information to be added to the article in the future (such as when a known event will occur). Larger amounts of information should be prepared on a subpage of the article's discussion page or in user space." --Gwern (contribs) 14:51 29 August 2010 (GMT)

On second thought, it looks as if it were "4chan" vandalism, which I should have reverted immediately. In any case, if you write the comment on the talk page, I won't revert it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

How very magnanimous of you. --Gwern (contribs) 14:51 29 August 2010 (GMT)

Tags again

You tagged SOoCC [22] apparently in error - GCSP isn't a political organistaion. Could you clarify this on the article talk page, please? The tag has now become hostage to consensus William M. Connolley (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

European Energy Centre

Hi Arthur,

can you advise how to make the article increase its notability. There are references to publications with the United Nations Environment Programme, the intergovernmental International Institute of Refrigeration and more. Can you help me understand what it is missing more specifically. I am now working in bringing in links from other related sources such as Green New Deal, renewable energy etc. thank you for your help,

Regards, Spottiswoode —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spottiswoodestreet (talk • contribs) 16:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Best wishes for recovered health for your family.

I see your wikibreak notice, and just wanted to wish your wife and all concerned a speedy recovery and enjoyment of good health. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wiki ELs

Hi. Did you see the talkpage discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:External links‎#Off2riorob excluding open wikis under 12? Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Although I believe Off2riorob is correct here, (an open Wiki cannot be stable), there isn't consensus for that change, and it's not required by any policies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I assumed you had only read the editsummaries, which were inherently confusing. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Failing to discuss

You are telling me that I'm failing to discuss on Chiropractic. Please go ahead and check my contributions for the past 9 days I have done nothing except discuss that article. If I'm a bit slow to respond to some issues, that's because I have things to do outside Wikipedia. QuackGuru has been requested not to contact me on my talk page due to personal attacks, and I have reverted his edits on my talk page just as he reverts all my edits on his talk page. He knows this. The article talk page is not the place to resolve personality issues and I will not go into that on the article talk page.--Anon 10:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You may, of course, remove any sections of your talk page (if you also remove all replies). You may not remove sections of Talk:Chiropractic other than your own comments, and, even then, not if replied to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If all you have is uninformed personal comments about contributors I suggest you stay out of the discussion. Keep it focused on content on talk pages.--Anon 19:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If I wasn't already involved, I'd block you for WP:TALK violations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Anon 08:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Modular arithmetic

Hi there, Dr. Rubin: I am a bit disappointed that you had to delete my many hours of work on the topic of Modular Arithmetic/Functional Representation, but I have discussed this topic at length on the Discussion page under the heading by the same name, as I proceeded to contribute improvements to it. Could you please address my concerns by reading my extended "blog" there?

There has been little focus on this topic for at least six months, when I first contributed to it, until this week: I don't know why the sudden interest on this topic's content. Until a few days ago, no one had noticed some of the horrible math that had been posted there, in that same section.

I'll look forward to getting your feedback on the Discussion page. Toolnut (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Administrators with Wikipedia articles about them?

I posed the question in a discussion related to User:William M. Connolley if there is any administrator left, who is using his real name and is notable enough to have his own article. I may in fact be in a need for such an administrator. Is there any way to list or find administrators with articles? I could not find any list, but my 11 degrees of separation brought me here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I fact I asked the question here: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Remedies section is a train wreck. Not too many answers. Your name came up as number two. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I can think of a few but I don't know if it's polite to "volunteer" another user for something without asking them first. Why not ask on AN? 09:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.12.106 (talk)

It may not be reliable, but you can try to use database tools to find the intersection of the categories "Wikipedians with articles" and "Wikipedia admins", not counting the few people whose articles state they are Wikipedia admins. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The Truth About Limits

Hello Arthur,

Sorry for the inconvenience. I appreciate your time. I won't repost it. My mind is distraught with the notion that there are instructors translating limits of infinity as being DNE. Unfortunately as a private tutor of 21 years in AP Calculus and Physics I have to contend with an instructor who doesn't understand this. I was hoping there would be a place where reason could have its say and this misconception could be avoided by future students seeking clarification. As a side note, I even used a TI-89 ROM on my computer to calculate a limit, took a screenshot of it, printed it out, and had the student take it to her instructor. .. and still the instructor insists that the answer on the calculator is incorrect. Her interpretation of infinity is equivalent to DNE !! Help me free the children from this incompetence. Oh the madness !! :)

I have no doubt that your sense of humility has aided the path to your own enlightenment.

Your counsel is appreciated.

Your friend,

James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.234.206 (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

9/11 sanity

Yeah 9 11 was carried out by 19 cave dwelling Muslims who are openly funded by CIA. Even the Jundallaah terrorist leader admitted it. Wikipedia is for fact suppressing fagots like yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.114.241 (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Arthur, I have removed a long rant posted by the user above from the 911 CTs talk page. I see you have already warned him about being blocked. Has the rant been taken into account for that? 217.187.236.15 (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I have just now recieved this personal attack on my talk page, [23]. Maybe a block is in order 217.187.236.15 (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"Without" in Chiropractic

Wow, I sure missed that one (the non-sequitur "without") when I was looking it over. Good catch! Thanks for cleaning it up! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 17:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

September 11th

FYI, about September 11th, I made the change (which you reverted) after discussion with another user. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I don't consider it an improvement, but it's not much worse. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar of Integrity

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		The debate could have gone on for days...Thank for understanding Moxy (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess i should explain Y this was done this was...Recently we have added External watch list to all the projects (Not all are done yet_ see Wikipedia:List of WikiProject watchlists (alphabetical) for the list)....So what happens is that they were added bellow the footer on over 2500 articles as seen here ..this was done wrong as its bellow the footer..so I decided to fix all of them instead of a mass revert that was proposed I did this fix ...Ans since i was fixing them all i though i should add the Polices as this are project wide guidelines applicable to ALL projects ...and then i aded the tools for fun (since then 20,000 articles have had the tools used in them). Agian if this links are not helpful to the projects in-question ...they should be removed at willMoxy (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

See User talk:Teacherbrock#Major changes must be discussed. When I saw you referenced the header, I put it back as a subsection. -- Avi (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

XMRV

Arthur, please include this study in the opening of the XMRV page. It is undeniably relevant to the discussion, and it is currently the most prestigious publication among all others relating to XMRV, MLV's and CFS. Come on now, be reasonable. Who else has a greater reputation among the authors than Harvey J. Alter? For Pete's sake, he's the director of the NIH.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/08/16/1006901107.abstract —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgladden2 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

SmackBot

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 18:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC).

Reverts

WHY????? CommanderWorf (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

All inappropriate; most not relevant, images. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Current Straw Poll

Hi Arthur, I recognize you as a user on some of the pages I edit, so I thought maybe you could help. I recently added my response to this Straw poll on Wikipedia. I can't believe I hadn't read anything about "Pending Changes." I read that it was a two month trial, but when were these changes proposed? Also, sometimes I get a bit overwhelmed with all the information on here. Are all announcements posted on Wikipedia in a Watchlist options box? I seem to recall an invitation made for those Wikipedians who lived in my town to get together during last Christmas break, but I can't recall where that was posted. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Carbon neutrality, Revision as of 16:58, 15 September 2010

Dear Arthur, you tagged the external link to www.southpolecarbon.com as rv spam. As South Pole Carbon Asset Management is the world's largest developer of high quality emission credits, which companies and individuals use to become carbon neutral, I think a link to that website makes a lot of sense. Could you please explain why you took out that link? Thank you very much.SPpenguin (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

My paper was revised. Thanks!

Dear Arthur Rubin,

Did you know: my paper was updated: http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1808 Please, see my thanks for your help in Acknowledgments section. Looking forward to hear your comments about revised Lemma 1. --Tim32 (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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.[24] 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 [25] 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)

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)

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)

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 FPMBen (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FPMBen (talk • contribs) 02:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'd change "shoot" to "shoots" for agreement in number, but otherwise it looks good.   — Jeff G.  ツ 02:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring.

Arthur, you restored the disputed "grassroots" to the lead entirely without discussion. Given the nature of the article, I find this to be hasty and counterproductive. To make such changes, you must first gain consensus by going to the Talk page and making your case. I recommend that you do so. Until then, I will remove your premature, "bold" change. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, your removal of "grassroots" was bold. There had been discussion of the removal of grassroots, and no consensus was yet obtained. Furthermore, it's now removed from the body, which is absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As I've made quite clear, I fully support mentioning "grassroots" in the body, just so long as we attribute and balance it. Would you like to go ahead and do that? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As others (not yet me) have made quite clear, "grassroots" belongs in the lede. It clearly started as a grassroots organization, and that belongs in the lede, even if it had been co-opted (which is not the same as astroturfed, and is not sourced.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

My chief complaint is that you made this edit without joining the discussion. If you had, you might have noticed my most recent post, which happens to be incompatible with what you just said about the issue. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Current Events

Hey, here is a link to the exact law being broken by McDonald's in Ohio, [26], please put back the article, Passionless (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why that makes it notable. I'm sure that individual McDonald's frequently publicly violate laws. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that most of the violations involve food preparation, which is neither notable nor surprising. However, these violations involve political influence, which is both. Put it back. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 07:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, would you care to explain this? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's an easter egg. No one would expect "negotiators", even in regard global warming, to link to politics of global warming. I look at it as the anon's attempt to create links to articles which he/she thinks are important, regardless of relevance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not an easter egg, it's a dispute about linking. It would make perfect sense for "negotiations" to link to Politics of global warming, so "negotiators" isn't exactly a big stretch.

While I have no strong opinion to either side, I do have deep concerns about your willingness to revert this change endlessly, with disregard for the rules against edit-warring. Just because you disagree with someone, even an "anonymous" IP, doesn't mean they're vandals that you can freely revert. Instead, you should engage them in conversation and try to explain why you feel the link is inappropriate. If that fails, escalate to dispute resolution, not edit-warring! Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

They're not vandals. They have no interest in improving Wikipedia, but damaging Wikipedia is not their primary purpose. They are only in adding links to articles supporting their view of reality. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Aren't we all? So long as they do all this within the confines of the rules, it may well have the consequence of improving Wikipedia. It's a big tent, after all. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Since when have he/she/they followed the rules? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Since when have you? You've been edit-warring against them, mercilessly reverting every attempt on their part just because you disagree with them. It's one thing to revert actual vandalism, but something entirely different to treat people like vandals just because they never bothered to make an account. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

IP linker

Please see User talk:99.155.147.254 and their contributions. It must be nice to be loved. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Clarify

Hi Arthur. I made this edit in reply to Alex (as reflected by the indent). Is that clear enough as it is? Or should we bullet our separate replies? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. No, that's fine. (I'm not sure how my double-signature got there, though.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Welll, apparently you re-signed after you expanded your comment. See [27]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Reincarnation

Hey, I think you might have reverted too far when you were removing something from the Reincarnation page. You reverted went past my edit in which I removed a really poorly written and poorly cited (in that one of the citations was a German YouTube video, and one didn't work) section claiming that some Christians believe in reincarnation. Was that your intent? I'm just checking because I don't want to start an edit war. If you want to keep that paragraph in, maybe you could clean up the grammar of it. Matt J ^User|Talk 12:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Tag Clean-up"

Hi. I've already asked another editor that I respect a lot for input on this, but I'm going to express the same sentiments to you because I feel it's important.

I'm concerned about this section, not because because it violates policy, but rather because it's disruptive to the mission of the page. Creating a section for the debate of certain tags invites the discussions about the tags' objects to migrate away from their own distinct sections and into that one. I'm also distressed because the tags should remain in the article for as long as their objects are contested and there isn't consensus. A section in which the participants decide to remove a certain tag from the article can subvert the consensus processes in which other editors are engaged in the corresponding discussion sections.

It's already happening. Imagine how big the Tags section is likely to grow. It's destined to become a super-section with breakaway discussions going on parallel to the discussions taking place in their designated sections. I just think this is ridiculous and I don't think we should fuel it. -Digiphi (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's your choice. But keep in mind that, if you don't attempt to justify your tags, they will simply be removed. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I not going to continue an argument with you on Arthur Rubin's page. I've left you a short note on yours.-Digiphi (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

And I'm not going to argue with you on my talk page when the discussion belongs on the article's discussion page. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Can mathematicians count to three?

Rubin, for this edit, you left a comment accusing me of violating WP:3RR. As I explained in some detail, this turns out not to be the case.

Now, I'm sure that both you and Malke were honest in your accusations, but simply misunderstood the rules or had some trouble counting up the edits. Regardless, I'm entirely willing to assume good faith.

While I am not demanding an apology, I would very much like you to formally retract the accusation. Will you do this for me? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Mediation talk

Can we please agree to keep discussion about the mediation formalities in the Talk page so that the Project page can be used for mediation? Interjecting unsigned objections like that is not productive, and to be frank, the objection was not relevant. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If the purpose of the mediation page is to express the dispute, then the dispute as to which is the "stable version" needs to be there, also. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Please respond on the mediation Talk page and I will explain there. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback: SpikeToronto

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at SpikeToronto's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— SpikeToronto 20:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

COI on TPM

Arthur, as someone who has run for office on the Libertarian ticket, you have a serious conflict of interest when it comes to the Tea Party Movement. I'm not saying this is what disqualifies you from having a valid opinion, but I do insist that you reveal your COI, just as JJB has. It's only fair.

And, to be fair, I want you to understand that if you don't reveal it, I will not hesitate to reveal it for you. As a courtesy, I will give you a day to add that COI notice on the mediation page. After that, I will take matters into my own hands. Thank you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record Arthur and FWIW it's not a big deal, and none of your comments on the TPM or discussion page have been called into question or your propriety attacked. 1.) Back in 1984? You lost the fight? Fine then, sorry it didn't work out for you. For comparison, Darrell Castle may certainly participate in the discussion page for the GOP article. 2.) The mediation is exclusively about the "grassroots" question in the article lead, and has nothing to to with "Libertarian", or Arthur Rubin.

For the record I was once registered to vote in the Republican primary, and supported Chuck Baldwin for president, including contributions. And I'm certainly not going to accept any COI gripe to keep me out of a discussion. -Digiphi (Talk) 19:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Digiphi, please, let's not stir up trouble where there is only agreement. Nobody ever suggested that either of you keep out of the discussion. Just as JJB was kind enough to share possible conflicts of interest, Rubin was willing to do the same, so the matter is settled. Let's set our sights forward to how we're going to resolve our conflict over "grassroots", ok? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, your confession has moved me to confess my own COI's. Here goes: I voted for Barack Obama, even though I really wanted Hillary Clinton to win. Chances are good, if Sarah Palin is running in 2012, I may just vote for him again. Also, when you were running for office in 1984, I was a small child, like about toddler size. Also, sometimes I eat at Real Food in Santa Monica where it's all vegan food. I like the grilled vegetable wrap with the portabello mushrooms. No tofu for me. And recently I rolled a stop sign in downtown Los Angeles late at night, but the police officer let me off with a warning. That's it, honest to God. And I have to say, I feel sooo much better now.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I talk to my cat. Whether she talks back is none of your goddamn business and isn't relevant to the discussion. -Digiphi (Talk) 02:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't have a cat, but I will say that at Real Food in Santa Monica, I can feel the vegans judging me when I order the portabello mushrooms instead of the tofu. I know, it outs me that I'm not a real vegan. I've had the American Burger at Gallagher's Irish Pub. I admit it. And Arthur, I saw you there, too. Don't deny it.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is Gallagher's? I don't think I've been there. Must be my evil twin. Or perhaps Ctein. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's the one in Dublin, but when we don't want to make that long drive, we go to the one in Long Beach, California. Don't deny it, I know you were there. Digiphi's cat is telling everyone. Go comment on the AN thread about unlocking the page. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's the link [28]. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Rel canonical model

Hi, I put a ref to a Maths article (website in Germany) and you undid it. No problem with that but it is out of print and hard to find anywhere. Reason for undo? Createangelos (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

PS it is in vol 1 of Adv Stud Pure Maths published in Japan which was never reprinted for some reason and not available electronically outside Japan. Our library doesn't have it and I have never seen a published copy. Createangelos (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

PPS The link is to the website of a seminar of Viehweg, who passed away a few months ago. He worked with his wife Esnault on connecting these ideas with ideas of Deligne's thesis, which is available in IHES notes. As you probably know, lots of things get used informally such as the SGA seminar proceedings, most but not all available to interested scholars who are not at universities (and even some who are). Anyway the Viehweg site collects together five or 10 articles that are really basic in understanding the history and current state of things as of 2007 or so. The link was to one of them which is an actual reprint; not sure if Adv Stud Pure Math even exists anymore as a publisher or where the reprint came from...

My edit comment wasn't the best. I removed the "Ibid.", per our MOS, but you'll see the same reference pointed two twice in the article, the same places your two references were before. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What I am commenting on was that there was a link to a .pdf copy of the actual article and now that seems not to be there anymore (or at least it doesn't seem like anything happens when I click it on my computer, I'll try again now). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.230.191 (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no link now, I had made it so when clicking the name of the article it would go to the url http://www.uni-due.de/~mat903/sem/ws0708/C3f.pdf

I have my own copy of the article which I got from a scanned preprint in a file cabinet, but I was surprised that there is an orig. reprint on Viehweg's seminar page which he must have got somehow. Should I try again to put the link in?92.14.230.191 (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I removed it. That looks to be a perfectly respectable PDF file, but there may be copyright issues. Perhaps if you used the full {{cite journal}} template, with the link marked as a courtesy link? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. It was me. I'll put it back. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thx good edit.92.14.230.191 (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:TITLE revert

Hi Arthur,

Can you please explain this revert at WT:TITLE#Consistency because I cannot understand PMA's objection as stated in the edit summary of his original revert ("it "conflicts" under those conditions."... what conditions?), nor what he said in the comment at the talk page. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-07/Tea Party movement

Hello. I have signed on to mediate this case. Please make your opening statements at this time. Thank you! Hamtechperson 00:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey there Arthur,

Please go to this page and put in your opening statement. [29]. I put my statement on the talk page over there and didn't realize I should have put it on the project page. Just giving everybody a heads up. Thanks, Malke 2010 (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a general notice. Hamtechperson 01:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of primary sources.

Arthur, I've been looking at the BLP issue re. the King Bio court ruling documents. I asked a few questions on the talk page if you care to comment. Ocaasi (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly busy today (my time), but I'll try make a reasoned comment shortly. Considering how much another attempted use of the King Bio ruling depended on implying the common meaning of a term when the legal meaning was intended, I need to choose my words carefully. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate that. Though I wasn't on particularly good territory by discussing COIs with QG, I don't intend to insert anything on a technicality. At NCAHF, I was under what I thought was a reasonable impression that upper court rulings would be a nearly gold standard source similar to systematic reviews when it comes to reliability. I think that's partly somewhat relevant, but the BLP issue complicates it. As for WEIGHT--whether and which aspects of the trial the secondary sources listed establish it will be something to be figured out at the article. Ocaasi (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

mediation

can you provide a link for me over to the mediation for Tea party movement? Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

nevermind if this is it. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Seduction community problems again

Thought you might recall some of the past problems related to this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pickup_artist_editing_by_201.116.29.243. --Ronz (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Complaint

Not sure if you have (and if not i would wonder why) lodged one about User:Untillu loose atWikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User_talk:Untillu_looseLihaas (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I had already blocked him/her/it. I'm not sure why a complaint needed to be lodged, as he's already indefblocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, I had no idea you were a celebrity Arthur Rubin. I just wanted to mention that it was really me who solved the Four color map theorem and not those other guys. The edit that says they did it, is just revisionist history being put into the article. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, REVDEL them. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"State National" nom. for deletion

Howdy, Arthur! The article State National has been nominated for deletion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/State_National

Yours, Famspear (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Oscillo

Arthur you keep changing the information I am posting on the Oscillo page, saying it "contradicts" the other information. This is not true, by removing this you are effecting the nuetrality of the page, the information I have is referenced and factual. Please stop taking it down, or I will look further into wikipedia for help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.78.14 (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, it does contradict the statements from WP:MEDRS sources that there is no evidence of effectiveness or conceivable mechanism, and the details from the French Pharmacopeia do not appear relevant to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning?

Since you placed a 3RR warning on my talk page, please identify the specific edits you believe are three reverts (undoing an editor's work). I suggest the result of PMA's edits and mine on that page today are an overall improvement largely consistent with BRD, though unfortunately accomplished with a certain amount of animosity, though no less than I feel from you.

By the way, your edit with summary "changing "consistency" back to "generally":

1. Makes you an involved editor so you should refrain from administrative actions here.
2. Is inaccurate, since that wording has, until PMA inserted it today without consensus, has never been "generally", so "changing back" is inaccurate.
3. There is no consensus for "generally" in this context.
4. It's plain wrong. As pointed out in the discussion on the talk page, which you have neglected to participate in despite your choice to participate in the editing, there is no evidence that consistency with the pattern used in similar articles is also generally preferred. To the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that it is not... for one example, just look at the guidelines at WP:PLACE; for the vast majority of countries the convention is to use just the city name, and to follow some pattern like "city, country" or "city, state" only when disambiguation is required (the U.S. convention is a well-known exception largely due to the large number of ambiguous U.S. city names combined with the generally well-recognized city, state naming convention). The statement that consistency with patterns like that is generally preferred, not just when disambiguation is required, is wrong and misleading. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

1. I'm not taking an administrative action. I just noticed an edit war between the two of you, and thought I'd remind you of 3RR.
2. The relatively stable version had no qualifier at all; it just said consistency is preferred. I think generally is more accurate than often or sometimes.
3. See above.
4. As has been pointed out many times, consistency is generally preferred. It's your assertion that it's only preferred when disambiguation is needed. I'd accept "generally preferred, especially when disambiguation is needed" (and not just consistency in the form of disambiguation, as your last detailed version specified.)

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't see how it's a matter of opinion. WP is riddled with so many counter-examples to "consistency (uses same pattern in title) is generally preferred" that I just can't see how anyone can claim it is generally preferred. How many counter-examples to X do there have to be before we can no longer say that "X is generally preferred"?

Take articles about books, for example. The title of each article about a book is, if possible, the title of that book. Does that make the title of Winnie-the-Pooh "similar" to Macbeth and Ivy Day in the Committee Room? How? Remember, in the context of the Consistency criterion "similar" means titles that "follow the same pattern as those of similar articles". What is the same pattern that is followed in articles about books (and movies and plays and places for that matter)? For most, there is none, and, therefore, consistency is not generally preferred. That's fact, not opinion. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That's slightly in favor of consistency. That is a pattern. Elizabeth II is an example of inconsistency; the pattern would normally be Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, names of royalty are part of the minority of articles in Wikipedia which are still largely named by following similar patterns even when an obvious title is available (not just when there is no obvious title or disambiguation is required), but even there the preference for blindly following such patterns is starting to fall out of favor, as Elizabeth II exemplifies.

By the way, if you have not read [the decision] about the relatively recent (April 2010) Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II move, which is quite relevant to this discussion, I suggest you do. Here is the core of the decision:

36 editors agree with DrKiernan's statement, while 14 oppose it. This supermajority is substantial enough to represent a consensus under most circumstances. However, since Wikipedia is not a democracy, consensus is not established by numbers alone, but also by strength of argument. In that respect also, the arguments of the editors proposing the move are better - not in the sense that I agree with them more, but in the sense that they are better supported by applicable Wikipedia policies and practices. The arguments advanced by DrKiernan (and endorsed by those agreeing with them) are logically consistent, arguing essentially that the "most common name" rule, a policy, and the neutral point of view rule, a core policy, are sufficient grounds to make an exception from the naming conventions guideline in this instance; and that the "of the United Kingdom" suffix serves no disambiguative purpose. The arguments opposed to this view are less convincing from the point of view of policy and practice, ...

I note that neither you nor I participated in that discussion, but PMA did, arguing, "the argument for the present title is consistency, ...", and "By WP:Article titles, one of major our objectives in titling articles is consistency". That argument was shot down, quite soundly I might add. This snippet is typical:

Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. AJRG (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Except when they aren't; as here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A concise title is preferred. You have to justify the need for disambiguation. AJRG (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So is a consistent title: one that follows the same pattern as those of other similar articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

However, it may be necessary to trade off two or more of the criteria against one another; in such situations, article titles are determined by consensus, usually guided by the usage in reliable sources. The present title doesn't reflect usage in reliable sources. AJRG (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Nor does it conform to either WP:NCCN or WP:NPOV. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Finally, to support my claim above that the practice of blindly following such patters is falling out of favor, consider this:

* clarifying the last discussion was closed on 17 March not last month[2] while the person closing said no concensus the majority(63%) supported the move this was a change from the first discussion in 2005 where 92% opposed the move, clearly concensus has shifted significantly on the issue. An rfc was suggested when the issue was raised at ARBCOM during the last discussion and given that the no-concensus closurer is disputable this is the next step the dispute resolution..Gnangarra 15:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The practice of predisambiguation (whether to follow the pattern of similar articles or otherwise) is, thankfully, and finally, dying. It's a slow and painful death, to be sure, but death it is.

My edits to WP:TITLE are ultimately about having that policy better reflect what is actually happening in terms of title decision making at Wikipedia than the wording currently implies, to which you and PMA stubbornly cling. The arguments that you and PMA are making with regard to WP:TITLE wording are similar to the ones that PMA made at the Elizabeth II, and were shot down, as they increasingly are in similar discussions in all corners of Wikipedia (in case you haven't noticed). How long are you going to hang on to them? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; I like the self-deprecating comment about templating the regulars. But my last edit was intended as a rewrite of text I (and now Hesperian, as a third opinion) disagree with; it still needs to be rewritten - or if Born2Cycle can stand no opinion but his own, removed. It is not practice; it is not consensus; it is not policy; it should not be on a policy page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Not BLP

Arthur, I'd like to give you the opportunity to correct an error you've made in this edit. You suggested that the full weight of WP:BLP protects the Tea Party movement, but that turns out not to be the case. Given that it's a large group, the policy is barely even relevant. Please read for yourself, and then correct your error. Dylan Flaherty 19:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right. When the Kochs or specific people in the alleged funding groups are named, though, those references are subject to BLP, but, potentially (although I still haven't seen any), a reference need not meet the BLP restrictions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Koch brothers are living people, and there are only two of them. However, the subject is the Tea Party movement, which has many millions of people in it. Dylan Flaherty 21:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought, at first, you might have been referring to my change of a {{disputed}} to a {{BLP dispute}} tag in Politics of global warming (United States). Although "Politics ..." is not a BLP, the disputed sentence was talking about the Kochs. Sorry about that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Never edited that article, but I do realize that the Koch's are at the forefront of the denialism movement, so it sounds like an entirely reasonable misunderstanding. Dylan Flaherty 02:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I'm just gonna back away from this.

While you're likely in the right here, this edit-war's has been going on since August and shows no sign of slowing. I don't even care one way or the other, so I'd just as soon not involve myself any further. HalfShadow 04:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Pickup artist edits

I am not him, I simple didnt understand you at the first time. Thanks for clarifying. The puffery and hype is recognised in the sence that its an euphism. It is as natural as natural makeup that got more chemicals then chernobyl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niklaskarlson11 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Koch

Just a heads up that you are at 3RR on the Koch article. Best, Arjuna (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

2017

Why did you remove the reference to the 150th anniversary of Canadian Confederation in the 2017 article? Aanother ignorant American douchebag. Don't do it again. There's reference to a political event on Hong Kong that you left up so I know this sort of event is perfectly acceptable to be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.129.27.67 (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Anniversaries are not listed in (future) year articles unless there are present, notable, document plans for the commemoration. See, for example WP:YEARS and WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing some litter? Needful of taking your own advice first?

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 3 (number). 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. Thoroughgoodness (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's an absurd reference, but it is an absurd movie, so that may be appropriate. However, the first time you added it, you claimed it was a revert. If that's correct, you would have violated 3RR with your edit of 09:37, November 29, 2010 (UTC). I'm not going to report you to 3RR, because I think you're lying about the first revert, but, if someone else does, I'll comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

cabal mediation

Hi Arthur, it seems our mediator has gone inactive, so I've posted the edit suggestion by Nillagoon on the Tea Party movement talk page. Might as well have everybody !vote since it really should be a larger consensus. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, totally agree with your comments on mediation cabal referendum thing, but as the article talk page discussion is well underway, and there now seems agreement between editors with often opposing views, I've voted to close the mediation. I do share all your concerns, but I think the wider consensus can manage that.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The Great Global Warming Swindle

A quick search of the Ofcom reference for "polemic" finds seven matches, including "the programme was clearly polemical in nature" and "Although this programme was intentionally designed as a polemic", to take a couple of examples. I'm not entirely sure therefore what led you to the conclusion that "polemical" was not supported by the source. --Merlinme (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. Further research indicates that I argued for inclusion of "polemic" a few months ago, as it does seem to be in Channel 4's argument to the Commission. However, it merely being in the complaint to the commission, which is the first reference I saw this time, would not be acceptable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries, we all make mistakes, although perhaps it might have a good idea to dig a little deeper when removing a reference from the lead to such a well scrutinised article. --Merlinme (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Truly weird claims

In a recent edit comment, you stated that "FreedomWorks' association with the movement has no source, reliable or not". Even if you knew absolutely nothing about the issue and had only enough intelligence to google "FreedomWorks Tea Party", you would have immediately found http://teaparty.freedomworks.org/, which lists itself as Tea Party HQ. I am deeply concerned that this is part of a pattern of bold but trivially refutable claims. Please be more careful in the future; your reputation is on the line. Dylan Flaherty 15:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that falls under WP:SPS, and is not reliable. There are many sites which list themselves as "Tea Party HQ". However, a credible source has been added, even if it also makes some clearly false statements. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Rubin, you claimed that there is no source for an association, yet I've just shown that their own site admits to such an association. There is nothing here to discuss except perhaps why you keep making errors with regard to the Tea Party movement. This is not a one-time thing; it's a consistent pattern. At some point, the assumption of good faith can no longer withstand such repeated assaults. Dylan Flaherty 16:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It's FreedomWorks' site, not "the" TP site, even if there were such a thing. If both sites existed, and reported the connection, it might be considered adequately sourced, even in the absence of third-party sources. Since a third-party source has now been added, I have no objection to the statement there, although I do have objections to your connected the Kochs to it without specific, reliable, third-party sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Which part of your response is supposed to refute the fact that FreedomWorks is associated with the TPM by hosting a site that brags of being "Tea Party HQ"? Dylan Flaherty 16:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

FreedomWorks claims to be associated with the TPm and TPHQ. We have no reason to believe it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

So you're offering your original research regarding which organizations are "genuinely" in the TPM and which ones aren't. That is both unconvincing and irrelevant. If they say they're Tea Party HQ, you would need a confluence of neutral, reliable sources to impeach this. I don't expect you have any such thing. Dylan Flaherty 18:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

So we are to trust your ideas as to which organizations are in the TPm?

That absolutely, positively wrong. If an organization says they're TP HQ, all we need is one clearly TP organization which denies to make the connection questionable. I suppose we can accept that FW claims to be a TPm. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

One way we differ is that I make no claims as to which organizations that call themselves part of the TPM are "genuine". That would be original research. Dylan Flaherty 20:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you do make such claims. In order to support a credible claim that AFP's funding of (some) TPm organizations is relevant to the TPm article, you have to have an idea of what is in the TPm. If (consistent with your interpretation) the Kochs and associated (I wouldn't say "affiliated") organizations fund only 5% of TPm organizations, you can't say that their funding is significant, even if reported by notable persons. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for not disputing that such claims would constitute original research. This is good reason for you not to make them. On my part, I avoid the issue by accepting that the organization considers itself part of the TPM, so we must do the same unless there is clear and compelling reason not to. So far, you've offered a blank statement that there is no connection, which was trivially refuted, and then compounded this with WP:OR. I'm not sure there's anything left to discuss here. Dylan Flaherty 20:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Chiropractic Reverts

Arthur, I see you reverted my reversion of QuackGuru's edits without a reason. I provided my objections in the edit comment as well as on the talk page. Per WP:BRD, we should be in the 'discuss' phase, not the 'revert again' phase. Would you revert back while this is hashed out on talk? Being as this is a controversial article, that seems to be the protocol. Ocaasi (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought the version including the Ernst paper here was stable. Am I wrong? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears I was wrong. Although I disapprove of many of your edits, this one seems to be reasonable, so I'll self-revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that concession. Is it possible you didn't look at the edit before reverting, perhaps based on a prejudged disapproval? Ocaasi (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It looked to be removal of WP:MEDRS sourced information, but it was recently added, and you provided reasons why it shouldn't be there. If it had been there for a while, the removal would have been inappropriate before discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Is there a particular issue you have with my editing, or is just that I tend to find myself on the other side of QuackGuru/skeptics, etc?

911 Truth

My undo was somewhat accidental. I thought I was removing that portion from the article for the reasons you mentioned. I probably shouldn't edit when tired. Sorry for the inconvenience. 92.76.140.144 (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Your reverts to 39th century BC through 29th century BC

I started a discussion on the talk page of 4th millennium BC, where I explain myself.LutherVinci (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep reverting this? I only noticed LutherVinci on WP:RFPP, I have no general interest in this article, but I suggested he take some form of dispute resolution. That came back saying these figures should appear in a myths section - which seems totally sensible. Whether LutherVinci is a creationist is irrelevant, this isn't the evolution article and his points he's made here are reasonable.

There is as much validity in the characters of the Bible as any other religious book or any other countries myths and legends and like other myths and legends it is perfectly possible that the characters in the bible actually existed, talking to god aside.

Do we really need to have further dispute resolution on such a short article? It seems rather ridiculous to me... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

His insistence that the Ussher dates are the only true dates is jarring, and, as far as I can tell, the consensus is his material could only be in a "myths and legends" section, not that it should be in a "myths and legends" section unless the dates can be clearly established. Where the material should go first is in Biblical chronology. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this content needs to be in a myths and legends section, but given another user wants to add it, and there are many other myths and legends already in these articles (e.g. Hindu gods, Troy etc.) there is no good reason to exclude it. With regards to dates, are there any Biblical scholars with a different view from Ussher who are more respected? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Almost every Biblical scholar had a slightly different interpretation of the Biblical chronology: Eusebius, Jerome, Lightfoot, Newton....Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I can't name Biblical scholars, but our article Biblical chronology doesn't mention Ussher explicitly, except in that he differs from what we consider primary as to the time between the births of Terah and Abram. If we were to have a single chronology to Biblical births and deaths in the century articles, we should use the same chronology as in that article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In which case I suggest we go with the chronology already used on Wikipedia in the Chronology of the Bible article. But it should still be includable in one of these "Century" articles. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It uses two radically different ones, neither of them Ussher's; the whole point of that article is to explain that there is no consensus system (and the Hebrew calendar is provably wrong in dealing with the period from Ezra to the Maccabees, for which there is external evidence: the rabbis simply omitted the Kings of Persia who don't happen to be mentioned in the Bible). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Rubin, you appear to be edit-warring on David H. Koch. This includes a pattern of repeatedly reverting to a version that is inconsistent with our sources, refusing to participate meaningfully in discussion, and generally tendentious editing. As an administrator, I would imagine that you would hold yourself to at least as high a standard as the rest of us are held, but I have been repeatedly disappointed by your the example you set for others. I'm going to simply ask you to revert yourself, without going into detail about the alternatives, as you should already be quite familiar with them. Dylan Flaherty 17:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. I am trying to find a statement supported by the reliable sources. Koch supports Republican Party candidates and some Tea Party goals, but it would be inappropriate to imply that he supports the Tea Party movement, itself. Perhaps the best phrasing would be that "(political) writers report that Koch supports Tea Party goals and Republican Party candidates." "Highlight" is absurd, and any claim that he supports the TPm needs to be marked as a claim. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This is about what our reliable sources tell us, not what you "know" to be true. You are edit-warring and violating consensus. Stop. Dylan Flaherty 20:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You are attempting to link the Kochs to the TPm. There is some indirect linkage, but your statements imply more than the reliable sources do. I would say that the paragraph provides WP:UNDUE weight toward the connection. Perhaps noting that there is no current connection between Koch and FreedomWorks as an objective statement would be more appropriate, if you must include FreedomWorks' current actions in an article about Koch. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, there's absolutely no need for me to make any such attempt, as we have reliable sources that succeed in it. Dylan Flaherty 20:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of Rollback

this seems rather inappropriate... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's reverting an edit made against consensus, although not vandalism, per se. Still, I should have added a comment the first time I reverted it, which may or may not have been that one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Er, take a look at what you reverted... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The reversion messed up the article. Dylan Flaherty 20:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was reverting a test edit. Quite appropriate for rollback. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite the opposite... Please check the diff link above, its quite clear what you've done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I still see it as removing a "\" and the number 3012. What do you see? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Look closer. You reinserted the \ and 3012. AniMate 20:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Weird. Now it appears I reinserted the \ and 3012. I don't know what's going on here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Music, mind and body DRV

The discussion that you participated in that resulted in the deletion of Category:Music, mind and body has been taken to deletion review. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Court of Auditor's opinion

How would you summarize the statement? Presumably full quotation would be disproportionately lengthy. Was pretty sure that's what it says. Take it you are in agreement that something about the CoA's opinion should be included here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk • contribs) 02:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's not what it says. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

As I say, how would you summarize? This is what it says, yet as it currently stands the page shows not in citation and I have a 3RR warning. Who is qualified arbitrator? (by the way, are you a qualified accountant and accustomed to reading such documents?) Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

hi, here is a question

Hi, I read your comment in the following page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Matrix_calculus#Proposed_.22Identities.22_section

So, you think the following chain rule for matrix calculus is wrong?

$\mathrm {D} \mathbf {Z} \left(\mathbf {X} \right)=\left(\mathrm {D} \mathbf {Z} \left(\mathbf {Y} \right)\right)\mathrm {D} \mathbf {Y} \left(\mathbf {X} \right)$

I'm curious about whether the matrix calculus has the similar chain rule. can you talk about this more clearly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.120.37.236 (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's correct if X, Y, and Z are column vectors (or, possibly, scalars). It's not correct, in our notation, otherwise. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Query re reverts without accompanying explanation.

User:Arthur Rubin, I see that you have thought fit to remove the board of directors from the article on Brighterion, although you do not provide any explanation as to why. I understand that Wikipedia works by consensus and would suggest that in future you first post an entry on the Discussion page. Perhaps you could entitle it 'are the directors of relevance to a company', or something like that. With reference to another similar revert I have noticed to an article on Steffani's Niobe, Regina di Tebe perhaps you could start a discussion entitled 'is the librettist of relevance in baroque opera', or again something similar. Don't know whether you would like to revert your reverts [sic? not quite sure of the appropriate terminology] prior to consensus being reached on these matters. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Most of your edits are in violation of WikiProject guidelines [please provide a full list of such edits and the nature of their violation of guidelines; I am happy to revert any that are inappropriate; I don't know if you are referring to edits relating to accountability? BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)]; I see no reason why I should assume [see Wikipedia: Assume good faith BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)] that the rest of them aren't. In regard the board of directors, the present list of directors of a company are clearly not of relevance, although the present and historical President and CEOs might be. [If and when you satisfy yourself of this, please reinstate present Executive Chairman, the Honorary Secretary General of Interpol, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)] — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Arthur, I see you have now also reverted my edit to hypocrisy. Please can I again refer you to the idea that Wikipedia works by consensus. If you would like to first post an entry on the Discussion page entitled 'are ways in which hypocrisy may be resisted of relevance to an article on hypocrisy', or something similar, then that would be great. In the meantime I would again invite you to revert your reverts [sic?] prior to consensus being reached. Perhaps you could start with my edit to Niobe, Regina di Tebe - I see you have yet to start a discussion as to whether the librettist is of relevance in baroque opera. I understand from a number of the entries on your talk page that you have a recidivist predilection for edit wars and unexplained rollbacks. I also understand that your time, like mine, is limited, so why don't we spend it on improving articles rather than reverting attempted improvements and reverting reverts that are either unexplained or have been made without prior attempt to reach consensus via the discussion page. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Please justify your additions on the respective talk pages; the WP:BURDEN is usually on the editor adding material. Also, consider WP:BRD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Alex Jones

Instead of wasting my time and yours, please discuss with me your basis for reverting my work. I have made different additions to the Alex Jones (radio host) article. If you revert any more changes I make without discussing the issue with me first, I will consider your changes vandalism. 72.240.82.155 (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The only possibly constructive edits were the additions to the list of guests, and even that was questionable, as one of them was a redlink. The rest were unsourced innuendo, including the categories and See also sections. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadads (talk • contribs) 01:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AshKmorse

You're welcome to comment. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)