User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2014

This edit affects an article that is included in the Tea Party movement discretionary sanctions. It reverts a minor change that is not vandalism. As such, it is a violation of the topic ban that got him blocked for the previous week.

Now, I'm sure a few dozen "neutral" editors will jump in to find some reading of policy that allows this, or invoke WP:IAR like last time by claiming no real harm was done and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy so its rules don't apply to admins they like. In this climate of unequal treatment, I'm sure that an ANI report will simply be closed despite its merit.

The point remains that Rubin is testing the walls of his prison cell, which is becoming a pattern. He's trying to see how far he can go and still get away with it. MilesMoney (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Arthur Rubin, and I hope that it is OK for me to comment here. MilesMoney, I think that it is nice and respectful, when you bring an issue to an editor's own talk page, that you speak to them in the first second person, such as "Hello Arthur Rubin, I have a concern about you wikilinking the New York Times in that Koch brothers article, because of your topic ban. Please be careful." Speaking of someone in the third person on their own talk page, while analogizing a topic ban to a prison cell, doesn't seem collaborative to me. So, I suggest a different approach going forward. A more polite approach. Please consider it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I used to address him by name, but I've stopped because he generally doesn't respond. Since I don't really expect him to answer anymore, I'd feel silly talking directly to him. Instead, when I find myself obligated to leave a comment about his behavior on his talk page, I just say it aloud to whoever might be listening.

The deeper problem here is that he keeps violating (or almost-just-barely-not-quite violating) serious policies. His refusal to respond to me is, in the big picture, a small thing. My subsequent impersonal mode of address is an even smaller one. MilesMoney (talk) 08:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. As usual. I requested clarification that I was allowed to revert the "Michigan Kid", even if in an article about the TPm. See User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2013#Arbitration amendment request closed ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arthur_Rubin&diff=575233137&oldid=575132947 diff). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Alternately, he's an administrator, dealing with a long term abuse issue and the revert was completely inert and harmless with regards to the tea party topic. Perhaps you should retract this particular one. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

George, I'd like to comment on two things. First, I'm sure you'll notice that Arthur Rubin didn't choose to address me by name, as you've suggested is polite. Second, I said in my original post that something would turn up that would excuse him, and this is precisely what happened. I'm not sure how I can retract an accurate prediction. Things ended as expected, so let's not beat this dead horse any longer. MilesMoney (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a better idea...since MilesMoney appears to have it in for Arthur and his ongoing comments here and at various noticeboards sure look like harassment, as an admin maybe you could impose an interaction ban. MilesMoney already gave us his opinion of Wikipedia with his comment at the bottom of his talkpage anyway. Miles routinely bans others from his page, so no reason to let this trolling continue here at least.--MONGO 12:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Mongo, Mongo, Mongo. What am I going to do with you? You know there's only one editor banned from my talk page (and it's an abusive sock who's in SPI right now). Why can't we all just get along? MilesMoney (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, you reverted MY original edits, so don't try this wikilawyering of trying to blame it on some Michigan Kid or whatever. You've been reverting enough of my similar edits to other articles that you clearly were aware of what you were doing. Wikipedia is not the place for your hyper-partisan "editing" aka whitewashing. I suggest you try Conservapedia if you're so allergic to facts. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The ones I reverted (except one, for which I apologize) appeared to be proxies for the Michigan Kid. The last one was on the page of a Democratic representative. How that could be related to the TPm is beyond me, and would probably be beyond anyone on WP:AE. I suggest you read WP:EL (and, specifically, WP:ELNO); you must justify each external link you add, whether or not through a template. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said on Ellison's Talk page, CongLinks is a template of long standing, and it is absurd to demand I justify every link, every time, for every US Senator, Rep and candidate, former and current. You've been here long enough to know that, yet you persist in your wikilawyering in your quixotic attemot to conceal information in the public interest such as financial contributions and all statements made by the person on C-SPAN. All you have provided in 'rebuttal' are your twisted interpretations of WP:ELNO. Wikipedia is not intended to be a place to allow people such as yourself to spin and cherrypick facts. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Absurd though it may be, each and every external link must be justified, per WP:ELBURDEN which says: "Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article." Also, the WP:EL guideline says "Each link should be considered on its merits", and "As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter." We cannot shoehorn multiple links into an article by way of template convenience. External links should remain individual entries. Binksternet (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Does this mean Binksternet and Arthur Rubin are the same person? Now that I think about it, there are indeed marked similarities in your posts. Isn't it against Wikipedia guidelines to pretend to be two people? 71.23.178.214 (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Have fun with that premise. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 19, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I've requested clarification from ArbCom regarding Gun control and that article's possible inclusion in the Tea Party movement topic ban. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Your sock is back at it. My phone is a pain to edit with. Arzel (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Got them all, I think. Anyone know the appropriate talk page template for "you're editing from a floating IP, and you've floated on, so there's no point in blocking you, but I know you're a blocked editor." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, for your consideration, people posting here with mentioning your edits. Prokaryotes (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Arthur rather than seek speedy delete of that page, if an SPI were to be filed that page might be interesting to reference. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

All the posters seem to be IPs; I'm not sure a formal cross-wiki SPI would be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you notice the IPs seem to be collecting a list if wikihounding links related to climate page editors? Now ask why those IPs would produce such a collection in the user space for a login account...... Just a thought. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

But the editor whose (commons) talk page is being used improperly is the one who brought it to my attention here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Arthur, do you want me to delete the page? Prokaryotes (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea, but it might be interesting to compare those edit times with those on en.Wikipedia. The "editor" is technically not blocked on Commons, so the only reason to delete the file is per the commons equivalent of WP:NOTHERE. I wonder if he's left messages on other Commons users or on other Wikis. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Enescot got one. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, just let me know if you want further assistance. Prokaryotes (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I notice in your BLP that you are/were a libertarian. I don't know much about it and I was wondering if you could tell me if I'm talking out of my arse in this discussion when I say, "The [image] filter is the libertarian position: it gives readers more, not less, freedom. Opposition to the filter is authoritarian - 'You'll look at dicks whether you want to or not, and if you don't like it, bugger off.'" --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole:, I can't say I agree. Libertarianism only describes what government intervention should be. Wikipedia administration is not a government. You best describe a pro-freedom position (for the users), but libertarianism is neutral on actions not of a government or inspired by a government. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. So, would it be liberal-anarchist, then? Sorry, I should read up on this stuff. Can you recommend a good beginner-level summary of libertarianism? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Libertarians oppose the initiation of physical force against unwilling persons or their property. Whether the force comes from a government agency or a private entity does not matter. Libertarians do not consider mere information (speech or images) to be force regardless of how offensive it may be to the recipient or to a third party. However, a light so bright that it is blinding or a sound so loud that it is deafening is force.

If Wikipedia chooses not to make a filter available to its readers, you are still able to protect yourself. You could either avoid Wikipedia or put a filter of your own on your end of the connection. Since you have no right to read Wikipedia except by sufferance of Wikipedia, it can present itself in whatever form it chooses and you must take it or leave it. You may not force Wikipedia to use a filter since that would be initiating force against Wikipedia. However, if Wikipedia chooses to allow you to participate in its process of deciding whether to use a filter or not, then you are free to express your opinion (for either side) in that forum. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

There are many books which try to introduce libertarianism, but no one of them stands out in my mind. In any case, there is no scripture or official definition of libertarianism. It is a movement of people who mostly think in similar ways about political and social issues.

If you want to come at it as I did or from a philosophical perspective, I would suggest the works of Ayn Rand, especially "The Virtue of Selfishness". However, that is about Objectivism which, while related, is not quite the same thing as libertarianism. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You say "it has been established by consensus that Democracy Now! is rarely a reliable source." So, who's 'consensus'? What criteria has this been based on? The statement posted on the page was shared in an interview with John Raines & the rest of the Commission.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.241.60 (talk • contribs)

Check WP:RSN; Democracy Now! is sometimes reliable for the content of interviews in regard the interviewees' views, never anything more. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is still true. They have changed dramatically in the last several years, and they have become more of a professional news source that relies on multiple journalists for the POV. I agree that they once had a tendency to push a highly biased POV, but how is this any different than FoX News which pushes an extremist POV in the opposite direction? If Fox News is considered a RS, then so is Democracy Now! Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we should pick one (1) left-wing outlet and deem it reliable based on the Fox News analogy, and then STOP using the Fox News analogy to validate zillions of other left-wing outlets. Whaddaya say?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

In all honesty, I do not know if Democracy Now! is a reliable source or not. I do know, that the source has become more professional over the last few years. Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Someone who wants to add material sourced only to DN! should bring the matter to WP:RSN. The particular source didn't look good to me, but I attribute more "articles" in web versions of publication to be "op-eds" or "commentary" (which we can only use for clear facts, not for any interpretation) than consensus here does. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

So according to your personal definition here of what is acceptable ("reliable for the content of interviews in regard the interviewees' views") this specific source passes the 'reliable' test, at least this time. If I revert your undo, will it stay there? It is content quoted directly from the interviewee, who is John Raines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.241.60 (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll have to check the material. If you want to add that Raines claims something, it's reliable for that. If you want to add that Raines did or claimed something, it's not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

There are other sources; this for example NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You know Arthur, you can do whatever the f*ck you want. I wasn't looking for a multi-day online fight with a stranger, I only wanted to add a bit of USEFUL and RELEVANT information to improve the article. There are several news articles out there (and more every day while the story is hot) explaining who John Raines is (the WP article does too). Raines read the statement he gave to Reuters, and I thought it would add value to the WP article. The ultimate source is John Raines himself. You can't get any more reliable than that when talking about the Citizens' Commission. It's politically motivated, obstructionist behavior like yours that killed Encyclopaedia Britannica, and it will kill Wikipedia too. Please, 'check the material' and undo your undo when you're good and ready. Caretakers of history who feel they need to obfuscate or rewrite it are some of the lowest individuals alive. Tell Jimmy Wales you have lost WP a regular donor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.241.60 (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

(Outdent). There's no need for the personal attacks. Leave a message on the talk page of the article asking for assistance with adding content and I'll be sure to take a look. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The clarification request involving you has been archived. The comments left by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 04:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you mean "still relevant", as you put "still irrelevant"? TySoltaur (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope. That they are professors is still irrelevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arthur Rubin; This interesting looking graph was on the Wikipedia page for "Wikipedia" and presented some interesting data. Your user page looks like you have a basic knowledge of statistics. My present interest is in writing a short new subsection for the "Wikipedia" page about wikipedia trends in the last ten years moving into wikipedia trends in the next ten years. To do this, it would be helpful is the stats used to create this graph could be accessed historically for the last few years and then to run some basic stats on them. Nothing complicated. For what i have in mind, it would be enough to assert if the growth rates are either cyclical or linear. Only the first four columns and first eight rows would be needed. What is the easiest way to do this? (Here is the graph.)

More information All articles by quality and importance, Quality ...

All articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low ??? Total FA 1,668 2,636 2,518 2,167 188 9,177 FL 195 690 793 705 99 2,482 A 377 700 811 613 110 2,611 GA 3,515 8,052 16,251 22,754 1,937 52,509 B 18,309 36,077 60,695 87,001 28,713 230,795 C 18,232 59,466 151,759 380,763 110,093 720,313 Start 18,805 96,092 438,936 1,855,510 452,962 2,862,305 Stub 3,949 30,435 273,654 2,910,229 790,922 4,009,189 List 5,286 18,565 57,566 226,010 101,038 408,465 Assessed 70,336 252,713 1,002,983 5,485,752 1,486,062 8,297,846 Unassessed 105 348 881 11,045 304,835 317,214 Total 70,441 253,061 1,003,864 5,496,797 1,790,897 8,615,060 Articles in this table may be listed in multiple projects. The counts, especially the total article count, is not a count of the total number of articles in English Wikipedia. About this table

Close

FelixRosch (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings,

I'm curious why you feel the links to wiktionary:Appendix:English numerals from Cardinal number and Ordinal number are "wrong". The target page describes the English naming rules for cardinal and ordinal numbers. I thought this information might be of interest to some of the readers of these articles; certainly it will help me find it again later. -- Beland (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It's only of indirect relevance. At present, the articles are about the mathematical concepts, and the Wiktionary section is relevant to the linguistic concepts. The wiktionary entry certainly is relevant to Ordinal number (linguistics) and Cardinal number (linguistics). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Tracing Wikipedia articles further, it should only be at English numerals, where I placed it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Perfect; thanks! -- Beland (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I saw you edited this previously. It seems to me that sourcing a 'he said she said' citation to the groups themselves is out of line for this article since it is already sourced mostly to itself. Perhaps it was not a newsworthy event but it seems if possible outside sourcing is better on something like this other wise its just a trading of accusations by the players in the article of who split and why. Would you care to weigh in there? Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Good morning Arthur Rubin, I tried something new. If one start the some number s the numbers n alway can be written as

${\displaystyle n=a\cdot s+b}$

with a,b fractional numbers. If known which operations (3n+1)/2 or n/2 is performed the new a,b can be calculated as follows.

${\displaystyle a'=(3/2)a\,or\,(1/2)a}$

Finally a gets the value

${\displaystyle a_{final}=(3^{c}/2^{l})}$

and as well b

${\displaystyle b'=(3/2)b+1/2\,\,or\,(1/2)b}$

Now we can ask wether a cycle occurs

${\displaystyle a_{final}\,s+b_{final}=s}$

or

${\displaystyle s={\frac {b_{final}}{a_{final}-1}}}$

Using ${\displaystyle a_{final}=(3^{c}/2^{l})}$ we obtain

${\displaystyle s={\frac {2^{l}\cdot b_{final}}{2^{l}-3^{c}}}}$

We can assume that the first operation is (3n+1)/2. Then we can derive

${\displaystyle b_{final}={\frac {3^{c}-1}{2^{l+1}}}}$

and final get

${\displaystyle s={\frac {\frac {3^{c}-1}{2}}{2^{l}-3^{c}}}}$

For c=1, l=2 we get s=1, Ok, that is the known cycle (1,2). But if there would be a larger cycle with c > 1 we can not find more than one odd starting point as

${\displaystyle s={\frac {\frac {3^{c}-1}{2}}{2^{l}-3^{c}}}}$.

Now we are on target - there is no other cycle, since there must be two different odd starting points in that cycle. What do you think, Mr. Arthur Rubin? Franz Scheerer (Olbers) (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks promising, although it still has no place on Wikipedia until published, and either in a peer-reviewed journal or by a recognized expert (meaning one who has published papers on the topic in peer-reviewed journals). You also need to deal with negative s. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:RYB

• Births are only to be included if there are Wikipedia articles in at least ten languages about the individual in question.
• The same criteria apply to deaths as to births.

In that case, there should be absolutely no births listed since there were not 10 articles about the person at the time of date of birth. You cannot use one set of logic for one yet another logic set for the other when they have the same criteria.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 04:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The criteria for deaths was changed later to "9 articles at the time of death." The birth criteria was not changed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You may wish to actually read WP:RYB. Your arguement is not supported by what is written. If concensus on the talkpage was reached, the main guideline should be changed to reflect this.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 11:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arthur!

I'm finally getting to this now. Proposed text for the ZF set with no GS:

There is a model of ZF in which the axiom of choice fails and hence in which nonwellorderable sets exist. [Here I refer to Cohen's original publication of the consistency of ZF + ¬AC.] Let X be any such set. Now consider the set Y = X ∪ ℵ(X) where ℵ(X) is Hartogs number. If Y were to have a group structure, then, by the construction in [reference to first section of article], X is wellorderable. This contradiction shows that there is no group structure on Y.

This is what you meant, right? It's so much neater and cleaner than what I originally put into the article. It also knits the article together in a closed circle. Why didn't I think of this myself? The fact that X itself perhaps doesn't have a GS using much more machinery (symmetric submodels, etc) is overkill for the article (but that's all I knew about at the time of writing). I might leave some traces of it in the article though, just to fill out the section with one more example.

Thanks. I highly appreciate your help. Please comment, and let me know if you see something wrong. YohanN7 (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

YohanN7, that's the general idea. You (well, I) can easily construct a model of ZFU (with urelements) with your properties (1), (2), and (3), but getting it to transfer to ZF is more trouble than it's worth. Conversely, if X is not well-orderable, then neither is ℙ(X) (the power set of X), and symmetric difference is a group operation on ℙ(X). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Only one thing I don't understand now in what you have written.

Conversely, if X is not well-orderable, then neither is ℙ(X) (the power set of X), and symmetric difference is a group operation on ℙ(X).

Also, from the previous discussion:

More interesting, in a sense, is that if there is an infinite Dedekind-finite set, there is another one which does admit a group structure. If X is Dedekind-finite, then E(X) (the set of all finite subsets of X) is also Dedekind-finite, and admits the operation of symmetric difference as a group operation. (I think this is sufficiently non-controverial, and I am an expert, that you might use this diff as reference.)

I think I understand the statements (not sure i could prove them in a blink of an eye), but what would the article say? Is the message that "not well-orderable" and "no group structure" are certainly not equivalent?

Is it perhaps so that "no group structure" is equivalent to our conditions (1),(2) and (3)? I have no idea of course, but it would certainly be nice if a precise statement No group structure if and only if some conditions could be made. Conditions (1) and (2) are clearly necessary (otherwise the set would be wellorderable), and Conditions (1),(2) and (3) are sufficient (as shown in present article). Are conditions (1),(2) and (3) necessary? (I'm on the borderline of OR here, might get me banned ;) )

Thanks for your time. YohanN7 (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The message is that "not-well-orderable" and "no group structure" are not equivalent. (2) is sufficient for the statement that if there is a group structure, there is no element of order "0" (∞, not of finite order); in fact, there is no permutation with an infinite cycle. (3) (with (1)) is sufficient for the statement that if there is a group structure, there is no element of finite order (other than the identity). I'm afraid you are on the borderline of OR; unless someone published conditions (1)–(3), it would be better to go with the existing proof. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Done: Group structure and the axiom of choice I think I got it all in there and it turned out to be suitable to also retain some of the previous stuff (which incorporated your final points of above). Questionable: I did go ahead and linked that post in Mathoverflow. (I have seen worse references.) Thank you very much. Let me know what you think. YohanN7 (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm having a problem with a user called Ismael775. You reverted his edits on this page and this page, and as you can see, he mentions me. He's also writing on my talk page all the time, and it's very annoying. Therefore, I'm asking you to either block him or give him a warning, because I've told him to stop many times, but he just doesn't listen to me. At least just do something. Thanks. DaneOfScandinavy (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@DaneOfScandinavy: do you want me to WP:Revdel or request WP:Suppression of the edits. They may fall under WP:OUTING, as they imply that you are an editor on Wikias under the same name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to delete the revisions, but I don't think that Ismael755 is on Wikipedia with the purpose of improving it, and I do think that the fact that he keeps writing to and about me, can be considered harassment. In fact, he's writing to me on many websites, not just Wikipedia. DaneOfScandinavy (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Ismael755 has sock puppet as his IP 74.89.64.251. I say this since he did not do it briefly, like he forgot to log in, but as a long stream of posts. Is he 68.195.96.238 who also posted a caption in good faith on the page or that harnessing 79.97.171.208 from circa 2010? I beleave DaneOfScandinavy is being cyber-bullied and that it is possibly occurring on You-Tube by what I can pick up over there. Check user- 68.195.96.238, 79.97.171.208, 74.89.64.251 and Ismael755- charge, cyber-bullying.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DaneOfScandinavy&diff=prev&oldid=589070063

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.97.171.208

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DaneOfScandinavy&action=history

The Northaptonshire pins (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

No offense but those IP addresses are not even mine to be honest. Ismael755 (talk)

I think, perhaps, there's a typo there. However, if you are blocked for WP:OUTING or WP:NOTHERE, then so will the IPs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, at first I created two wikis with his name that has now been closed. Later I said hello to him everywhere he is, but I don't try to harass or bully him in any way, and I'll stop. Ismael755 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That's off-wiki harassment, which is only relevant in determining whether your on-wiki actions are also harassment. As there is little doubt that your actions here are harassment, we don't need to go into your off-wiki actions or your promise not to repeat them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't really think it's Ismael755 who has done all that, although I've been suspicious at some points. Ismael755 is from Bronx, and so are all those IP addresses, and Ismael755 has once used one of those IP's. But could it be that it's simply a coincidence due to the fact that they live in the same city? DaneOfScandinavy (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

As Morten is trying to say is that IP addresses change periodically as it is shared by multiple users in the same range. I might've used those IP addresses, but I'm certain I haven't made those edits. Ismael Perez (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It's all OK.The Northaptonshire pins (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This dispute seems to be spreading into the mainspace. This diff is silly but clearly only intended to disrupt. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I took another look at it and noticed that it also looks like a deliberate attempt at WP:OUTING. This is more serious and will need oversight, so I'll try to get another admin.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

And...after another look I see that the inserted name is also on the target user's userpage, so it's not Outing, just annoying and needlessly disruptive. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Arthur, Only just read the top entry on your User page. I do hope all goes well with you wife and she is back to full health. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arthur Rubin,

On 10 February 2014 you reverted an edit I made in good faith on Income_tax_in_the_United_States You used the following edit summary: remove absurd clarification but did not comment on talkpage section which I initiated. Since you have been a regular participant on this article since 2007 I was taken aback by your comment, and was doubly surprised to find out that you are an Admin. Can you please explain your actions? I would appreciate being notified of a response. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The clarification request was seriously misplaced; I removed one of the two in that sentence, as I felt the other could use some help. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

To Ottawahitech: Perhaps you are assuming that a person who is a citizen of another country cannot be a citizen of the United States. That is incorrect; he may be a citizen of both. Read the whole paragraph with that in mind and you should understand. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how it is unclear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Per-decade articles exist for the decades spanning the 18th century BC, but links don't appear for them in the Centurybox template. I was able to trace the issue back to Template:dr-make but the template is locked and practically unreadable to me anyway. As you're the one who wrote/maintains it, could you update dr-make to support 18th C BC? Thanks. —coldacid (talk|contrib) 00:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I've got it. Please verify that the decadeboxes link as expected. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how long the job queue will take for it to propagate, but the earliest decade linked by {{dr-make}} is now set to 1790s BC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, looks all good to me now. Thanks! —coldacid (talk|contrib) 19:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Based on the contributors actions here and on dawiki, together with his statement that he would continue this nonsense, he's been given a prolonged break on dawiki. The best wishes to the wife. Regards Knud Winckelmann (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like your conditions were too hard to follow. These IP's, apparently geolocated in the Bronx, can't resist messing around with userspages: Special:Contributions/24.46.143.105 and Special:Contributions/24.186.223.111. I find their editing pattern recognizable... Regards Knud Winckelmann (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Arthur Rubin, I know you are a very helpful and valuable editor, for which I am grateful, but this one doesn't seem necessary to me. When I had the choice of making the references a separately-editable section or a non--separately-editable subheading, I deliberately chose the latter. I intended that reference list not to be further edited for sections that followed. If someone wanted to put in other references after that, they were free to do so. I don't see that there is or should be a rigid rule against what I did on the talk page, which is to some extent formless.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it looks more like the references section in an article if created as a subsection. It still gets archived as a unit, as archivers only use the level 2 headings. It's not a rigid rule, but < big> is deprecated, and is invalid HTML5. Furthermore, my edit qualifies as refactoring. I don't know if the {{refend}} works to prevent future references from being gathered; whether or not it does, it would work the same way in my version. I suspect you can find something in the MOS which suggests your format is not the way to go; it's not really that important, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that it looks more like the reference section in an article if created as a subsection.Chjoaygame (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at ItsAlwaysLupus's talk page.
Message added 17:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I planned to leave a message on your talk page as soon as I get here but you beat me to it, oh well. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, why did you revert my edit to the 73 (number) page? Treva26 (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Treva26, it's trivia, even by the standards of these articles (WP:NUM), which I believe are too lenient. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

So shouldn't most of the other Popular Culture points be removed too? Treva26 (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Most of them should be, in my opinion. But the "other fields" in 73 (number) are all something "named" 73. The (American) football score seems questionable, as well, but it is a record of some sort. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, i saw that you had some discussion with the user Chjoaygame (talk) in the past, today i filed a ANI report against that user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_vandalism_for_extended_period_of_time_on_Physics_topics maybe you like to comment? Regards, Prokaryotes (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This edit begins the article on the 2nd millennium with material about the 3rd millennium. I presume this is some kind of error; please edit so that it focuses on the 2nd millennium. I also suggest any further discussion occur at WT:Wikiproject Years#When do centuries and millennia begin? as it affects a number of articles. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

OOPS. Copy/paste between multiple articles is problematic for visual reasons on my desktop configuration, and I forgot to delete the 3rd millennium text. However, there is still no doubt that millennia officially begin in x001. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Calendars are a national matter. The United States does not have an official calendar. I have never heard of an instance of the United States (or any other country, for that matter) enforcing a definition of decade, century, or millennium. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Something can be official even if not enforced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser.
Message added 02:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

APerson (talk!) 02:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you please give a rationale for removing the Common Lisp snippet from Lagrange's four-square theorem, but leaving the Python code intact? melikamp (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Python code has a little elegance to it, while the Lisp code is brute force. Furthermore, the Python code generates sorted sequences, while the Lisp code generates all sequences. Admittedly, the number of all sequences (including allowing positive and negative integers) can be evaluated in terms of divisor functions, while the number of sorting sequences cannot. Still, only one language should be necessary unless there are different algorithms. Personally, I would prefer C or C++, but I'm not going to replace the Python code. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Melikamp: Also, the Python code is ${\displaystyle O(n)}$ (counting appending an item to a list, and searching a list for an item, as single operations), while the LISP code is ${\displaystyle O(n^{2})}$ (counting appending an item to a list as one operation, which it could be). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "elegance", unless it's your subjective opinion. The Lisp code you removed generates sorted sequences, not all. They ARE different algorithms, so both are OK by your own criteria, even though I disagree about either of these snippets being necessary. What does efficiency has to do with this, anyway? The python algorithm may be faster, but the LISP one consumes less memory. In sum, your explanation so far contradicted the facts, contradicted itself, and relied exclusively on appeals to your personal preferences.

Also, did you know that we were discussing the merits of including either code when you removed stuff? Did you realize that the Python code is both broken and may need citation, wheres LISP code has neither problem? Please, let's deal with this at the corresponding Talk page. melikamp (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The LISP code doesn't need citation because it's trivial. I was not aware of the discussion when I removed the LISP code, but it still doesn't belong in the article. I have doubts about the Python code, but I have no doubt that the LISP code doesn't belong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand that ASSET is not relevant in all articles relating to tax reform and I will stop adding links to all tax reform articles. I apologize for doing so. However, I feel like it at least deserves a mention along with the likes of Americans for Tax Reform, Americans For Fair Taxation and KillYourTaxes.com in the article on tax reform. ASSET is a growing coalition of nearly 13,000 individuals, small businesses and ranches; the ASSET solution for estate tax reform is gaining steam in Maryland politics; and currently the article on ASSET I submitted to Wikipedia is under review and likely to be accepted in 2 weeks.

For these reason I would ask you to please consider letting me add ASSET into the mix in the following paragraph -- even if only to mention its name: "During the Bush administration, the President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform recommended the removal of the Alternative Minimum Tax. Several organizations are working for tax reform in the United States including Americans for Tax Reform, Americans For Fair Taxation and KillYourTaxes.com. Various proposals have been put forth for tax simplification in the United States, including the FairTax and various flat tax plans and bipartisan tax reform proposals."

Thanks so much for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-13jlsilver (talk • contribs) 16:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I wouldn't have thought KillYourTaxes.com was notable. In fact, the web site doesn't exist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I appreciate it. Yea I just checked that out too, it's weird that it would still be included then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-13jlsilver (talk • contribs) 19:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Ismael Perez775 operates as Ismael777 on Wikia and stalks Morton D. Lord Gannon is getting anoyed on Althistory and he has been banned on http://futureverse.wikia.com/wiki/User:Ismael777 and others. I think he's a cross network troll. The Northaptonshire pins (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Arthur, i saw that you had a dispute here in 2010 with a user who is today part of a ANI request. Maybe you got an opinion? It is about the user edits, especially his framing of Sustainocene, and secondly implementation of snippets of "artificial photosynthesis" in various articles. Thanks Prokaryotes (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about your claim that it's not. I have begun a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Recent years#Is Easter Monday a religious holiday? I'd appreciate your thoughts there. HiLo48 (talk) 06:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

He's back; at least one IP (97.87.29.188) is one of the ones that was blocked with increasing duration and evntually incurred a year block NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey Arthur; just an FYI that I've reverted your edit here - the typo correction from the IP was a good addition. I understand the rationale, mind :). Ironholds (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at User_talk:Maurice_Carbonaro/Archives/009#Comment.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

  M aurice   Carbonaro  06:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Maurice Carbonaro:. It's in your archives, so it would be inappropriate to comment. However, before linking, you need to check whether the concept described matches the Wikipedia article, and whether the parts that do match are so obvious that WP:OVERLINK suggested they should not be linked. For a specific example, "mathematical models" (referring to models of set theory) has nothing to do with mathematical modelling. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I saw your links to the two musicians on the MOS discussion. Out of courtesy I am notifying you that I have nominated James Robinson for deletion, and am considering Alexander James Adams as well. They do not appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG by my reckoning (although Adams certainly is closer to the mark than Robinson). This has nothing to do with the MOS discussions (The articles are in fact valuable as examples of BIOs using the clause at question) but they just don't seem like they have any notability outside of fandom - no real WP:RS seem to be talking about them. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I can see your point. I think I saw a significant reference to Dr. Jane in a paleontology journal, but I'll have to check on it. I think Alex "clearly" does satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I decided not to nominate alex primarily on the support of his lyrics and persona being used in multiple novels.Gaijin42 (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin The template did it. The attack page one. I didn't do it maliciously! Mr. Guye (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC) I thought it was regulation because the template did it by itself. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Mr. Guye: That's because the "attack page" claim is absurd in this instance, making using the template severely inappropriate, although not necessarily "vandalism". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello. You have participated in the Gun control arbitration case, or are named as a party to it. Accordingly, you may wish to know that the committee is now voting on its decision for this case. The decision is being voted on at the Proposed decision page. Comments on the decision can be made at the Proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 11:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

There is an RfC on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page which may be of interest to editors who participated in "RfC: Remove Nazi gun control argument?" on the Gun control talk page.

• RfC: Replace existing Nazi gun control paragraphs?

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

There was a template for discussion which resulted in merger notices being placed on every use of the see also template. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 April 24#Template:Rellink. "Comment can this be done quickly, or the template note be taken off every single page that this appears on? While it's obviously important to get templates right, it's unsightly and distracting for readers to have those notices put up everywhere - a bit like roadworks that block off a street for weeks without much being done. There are probably better ways to alert editors. Cheers, Wikidea 10:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)" In any case the problem seems to have been resolved. Thanks for reverting the exoplanet article to the templated version. Astredita (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

In your edit I'm trying to make sense of "his". I read it as referring to EllenCt. While I do not know for sure, I would have guessed that Ellen is female. Do you know otherwise, or am I misreading your subject line? (I should add, that while I am a clerk on the case, I am not asking officially, I'm just confused.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Moot point. Arthur has removed his evidence. – S. Rich (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, stop it. You guys are edit-warring. Talk it out on the Talk:Utopian and dystopian fiction page. --Lquilter (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If you don't think it belongs in examples why is half of the page dedicated to talking about the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:F2C0:A400:CD9:4B89:6296:F4F6 (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Wherein I quoted his rather less than helpful edit summary addressing you personally. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It may be "obvious" to mathematicians that, for instance, an arbitrary nondegenerate real interval has the same cardinality as the set of real numbers. However, for students reading the article, the proofs are useful. Please also see the discussion of this issue on the article talk page, in which another editor concurred with my view as to the value of the proofs. Your edit also removed, perhaps unintentionally, a reference about Cantor's proof of continuum cardinality for Euclidean space, which is certainly appropriate material for the article. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

@DavidLeighEllis: Using the Schroeder–Bernstein theorem, all that is needed would be one map from an open interval onto R. Tangent should be adequate for that. The details of mapping a closed interval onto R might be vaguely interesting, but the simplest map really does resemble one produced from the Schroeder–Bernstein theorem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we more or less agree on how the proof should proceed (I would map from R onto the open interval using arctan instead, but since the function is bijective, this doesn't really matter.) While you might consider this trivial, when I was first studying this some years ago, the result was a surprising one. This is why I believe that the proof should be in the article. In any case, I am taking the liberty of restoring the reference containing Cantor's proof of continuum cardinality for Euclidean space, which is far from trivial. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I first crossed paths with you in the beginning February, 2014. At the time you chose not to participate in the discussion on the talk page but have since been accosting and badgering me constantly by flooding my talkpage with messages, nominating content that I create for deletion, reverting and changing my edits (sometimes in areas you have no experience in), and posting accusatory comments on public talk pages where I participate. I now see that you have also started accosting and badgering User:Skookum1, one of a few editors who has been nice to me and in whom I recently confided about your behavior in the same way, for example

Do you sincerely believe that your actions are bettering Wikipedia? Can't you see that it could look like you are trying to drive off content creators? XOttawahitech (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech:In your case, the actual content creation is usually of benefit to Wikipedia, except that you add Canadian references to articles not really about Canada, and seem to believe that any Canadian MP must be notable. As an American, I have doubts that every member of Congress is notable. You also use opinion columns as references, in the case of FATCA in Canada, you only use opinions (some expert), and no news reporting.

Categorization is an exception to the essay WP:BOLD, as improper categorization takes a lot of effort to undo. I had never thought of adding "Women"/"Female" categories as ghettoization, but I can see the point, and I have doubts about triple-intersection categories, such as Category:Canadian women lawyers. You actually have created some quadruple-intersection categories. May I suggest that you not create categories without some consensus, and without adding a description of the category (not just a {{catmain}}, or whatever it's called now, template). Sometimes it's obvious, but often it is unclear, even for intersection categories. For example, in Category:Canadian lawyers (which you didn't create), a moderate length paragraph is added stating exactly what a "Canadian lawyer" is; one authorized to practise law in Canada, whether or not a Canadian. Even if Category:Canadian women lawyers is appropriate, it needs a short note about what a "Canadian lawyer" is. (I guess it's not a triple-intersection category after all, but how would one know?)

May I also suggest that you not add WikiProject tags to articles where you do not otherwise participate in the WikiProject. Categories and dab pages are not automatically of interest to Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists, even if some of the entries are lists. I've been censured for adding WikiProject tags, but never yet (except by you and GregBard, in regard Wikipedia:WikiProject Logic, where we are members of different parent projects, and disagree on the scope) for removing them.

So, I am not trying to drive off content contributors; I'm trying to get them to add content which meets Wikipedia standards. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: As for the our first conflict, you added a tag to the phrase about non-US persons being subject to US taxes, then, when I removed the tag, you accused me of removing the phrase. Your lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies and actual edits makes it very difficult to work with you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 14:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

And Ubikwit's "evidence" has me added to the case ... sigh. But I love this cite:

I am displeased at being listed as a party to this case. In the event that this request is accepted (a prospect I make no comment on at this point) and that the final decision involves some variation of the usual "All parties are reminded to act like reasonable adults" remedy, I would be annoyed enough to retire from editing. Doubtless many of the other administrators whose involvement in these disputes is confined to attempts to keep editor conduct in line will be similarly annoyed at having been listed as parties to this request. AGK 22:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect you know my thoughts. Collect (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Collect, I don't have time to make a coherent comment, except my early (now-deleted, as it shouldn't have been where I put it) that Casprings' comments at the RfAR and in the evidence phase provide evidence that Casprings was being tendentious, and nothing whatsoever about his target, Arzel. But the arbs already know that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Please don't let Mr. Guye get under your skin. Many of Mr. Guye's edits are disruptive, but getting in a cycle of reverts won't help. I'm sure more than a few editors notice the activities of this editor. I check regularly for nonsensical edits, and have reverted as a few. (I did try to offer some of my experiences in starting out here, but that disappeared from Guye's talk page, like so much else). Suggestions are welcome. - Neonorange (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

((ping|Neonorange}} It made me think, though. There is almost certainly a gender specified in the original myth.

I have no idea how to convince someone that his edits are grammatically incorrect, when he feels otherwise. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

((ping|Arthur Rubin}}

Certainly, in translating myths from a language with gendered nouns and adjectives to English, more than a mechanical fudging of pronouns is necessary. I've looked at a few, admittedly low quality, web sites en Español, that use masculine in describing the Abchanchu. And at es.wikipedia.org, in >Creencias sobre vampiros<, these two sentences

"En Bolivia se conserva la leyenda del abchanchu, una criatura semejante a un vampiro capaz de transformarse en un viajero anciano e indefenso. Cuando otros transeúntes le ofrecen su ayuda, el abchanchu los ataca y bebe su sangre" (emphasis added).

But I don't really think it's a question of persuasion; one need only take a look at the editing stats (percentage of deleted edits), the disappearing user talk page, the user page, and user contributions to see that a clue on how to get along and contribute usefully to Wikipedia is what's needed. There's lots of energy there, but somewhat misdirected. I haven't edited much here, but I watched and tried to understand the process before making more than minor changes. Learning, ahead of time, that perhaps most editors with a high edit count know what they're doing, and to think 3 times before pressing [Enter] (before any edit). Mr. Guye did come to the article talk page at Talk:Utopian and dystopian fiction, for a good result. If you want to follow someone's edits, try me. I could use some help, and I promise there won't be any stress B^). If you wish, I will try to make a "follow the original language" case should it be necessary, yet again, in Abchanchu (that is, if the article in es.Wikipedia.org is not a translation of the article in en.wikipedia.org which is a translation of the article in es.Wikipedia.org...) p.s. I don't understand much Spanish, but I did take a few years of Latin. - Neonorange (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Just wondering. - Neonorange (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I was housed as a graduate student, so it's not as important, but Keck and Braun. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Page; but then discovered I had no aptitude for math... How are you and your wife doing? From your user page notation, recovery seems a team effort. - Neonorange (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• 71.23.178.214 (talk · contribs)

Since you blocked him last time...

He seems frustrated, a bit incivil, but the real problem is that when we try to discuss the value of the individual links he wants, he changes the subject (Talk:Michael_Grimm_(politician)#External_links) or ignores it (Talk:United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina, 2014). He has now refused to take this to ELN (User_talk:Ronz#Consensus_-_DMOZ_links_again).

You want to handle this, or should I take it to ANI? --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me here, Ronz. As Arthur Rubin states on his User page, he is an editor at DMOZ. And sure enough, here he is - going back to at least 2004. See? http://www.dmoz.org/public/profile?editor=arubin I look forward to his reaction to your spin on the Michael Grimm Talk page, too. Popcorn time! 71.23.178.214 (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ronz: I think WP:ANI is appropriate at this time; in addition to repeating his previous "problems", we have WP:CANVASS and WP:NPA violations to deal with, as well as potential WP:OUTING. (I was a judge at ISEF from noon (PDT) May 13 through late evening May 14, leaving me limited time to access the Internet except to access information about the projects and transportation.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion started here. --Ronz (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I noticed you've edited the page before. Please chime in on a critical question. Talk:Richard C. Hoagland/Archive 3#RfC: Should article be trimmed down Thanks!!! :) Nasa-verve (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Arthur, do I remember correctly that you had it out with ChildofMidnight once or twice? Either way, you are mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight, about one of CoM's blocked socks (Fortheloveofbacon), who has significant overlap with a current user. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't say I remember CoM, but I think I remember bacon. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Technically, that comment was about my article, not me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but that kind of makes you sound like Mrs. Drmies. And typically, when she starts a sentence with "technically", I already disagree. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting my posts I didnt know they bothered you i didnt know wikipedia was very territorial — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexcnc13 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The events you mentioned are not notable enough to justify including them in the general articles on the years which you edited. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Arthur, the Chicago plan is the most reasonable and elegant solution of the national debt issue. It's a pity that your incompetence in this area makes you to remove it from the page. On the same token one can remove a math theory just because they don't understand it. But editing wiki is your job, so its up to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.233.84 (talk • contribs) 09:25, May 29, 2014‎

It's not a "solution" (IMO), and not relevant to that article (clearly), and not yet sourced to a reliable source — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I looked at the reverted text, and my brain was mush after the 2nd paragraph. I agree with AR's edit summary that it read like gibberish. That said, the proper place for discussing this is the article talk page, so others can weight in also. Then again, any ed who refers to another's alleged "incompetence" doesn't really earn much credibility in my eyes. See WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and especially see WP:BOOMERANG NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Read again what you have written. If alleged incompetence doesn't earn credibility, what ed with alleged gibberish does? If your brain is much after an astronomy bit does it mean that heliocentrism is gibberish? The reverted text mainly reiterates the section called 'The transformation' from the 'Chicago Plan Revisited' wiki page and should be well understood by an economist. This is more than relevant here, as the side effect of the proposed monetary reform is elimination of national debt which this article is about. Unclear description for wide public? Maybe. Gibberish and irrelevant? No way. I am not going to become an editor and spend time re-writing or further discussing this, you must be right re the wiki guidelines, but IMO thought provoking 'gibberish' is better than perfect nothing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.233.81 (talk • contribs) 09:45, May 30, 2014‎

In reply to I am not going to become an editor and spend time re-writing or further discussing this - ok NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

hello. since you are an editor of the article Ammar ibn Yasir, would you be interested in voting for it to make it a featured article or not? thank you for your time Grandia01 (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed a prod on 2719 thinking the editor had either misunderstood the lead or was deliberately being obtuse. I missed the significance of the ellipsis after "it says it's the largest known odd number". I've now just seen who put the prod there so I feel a bit sheepish but I actually still think prod was too abrupt. I have no difficulty at all with a merge to 2000 (number) but we should keep the nugget that is is probably the largest such number (extraordinary to my mind), not merely the largest known. Also, of course and importantly, the references. We should keep a redirect. Now, I (we) could just go ahead and do that but seeing as you've raised the matter here, I'll just lie low for the time being. Thincat (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem with a straight merge is that there is too much material for a line item, and not enough credible material for an article. We have to decide how much material is credible and noteworthy. I'll take a stab at it, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I have added a bit more and it is still not the longest item on a number. This article is an absolute shocker with no references at all (until 2719!). I never followed what was happening back when these multimerges were going on. Were the original articles referenced and those got lost or were they never referenced in the first place? Thincat (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Thincat: I believe most of them weren't original articles at all, but most number articles are inadequately referenced. On the other hand, saying that 412 is even shouldn't require a reference. Exactly where the boundaries of WP:CALC fall for mathematical properties is the subject of some debate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I live near Levy County and have an update.. Duke Energy bought Progress Energy. They are decommissioning the nuke plant in Citrus County and have scrapped plans for the two plants in Levy County. I'm sure Chiefland was planning on benefiting from the Levy plants and it's mentioned in your article. I'm sure you can find references and update the Chiefland article fairly easily. Thanks for all you do. Sjry (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your (in effect) deletion of the article. I was too brusque and rude about it; I now am seeing that you indeed looked around to see if it was likely to be notable. I would still like to see an AFD process undergone in order to delete the article; regardless of that process, I erred in my behavior and would like to apologize. Thank you. Red Slash 22:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Red Slash: I was wrong in proposing deletion; however, all that should be in the article is in 2000 (number)#2719, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers convention. The rest of the ${\displaystyle ax^{2}+by^{2}+cz^{2}+dw^{2}}$ discussion should be at Ramanujan, or at some other article on quadratic forms, not the article for any specific integer. In fact, much of it is at Ramanujan's ternary quadratic form . — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Arthur

Why remove all the improvements I made at the weekend? This has reintroduced errors and ambiguities. E.g. not all systems are activity systems (as some contributors have assumed). E.g. it is untrue that every system (e.g. the internet, or IBM) is bounded in space. E.g. "components" are probably better regarded as a subtype of "element".

And why say the source quoted is unreliable? It is backed up by detail research and references, and more reliable than some of the other sources.

The result of reverting is that my web site defines a system better than Wikipedia.

Kind regards Graham — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.22.80 (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Systems are bounded spatially. For example, the Internet is confined to the surface of the Earth. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No. The internet can involve radio transmissions that are not confined to the surface of the earth, but that is irrelevant here. "Bounded spatially" does not mean limited in terms of geographic locations you might find it in. It means the system is separable from its environment by a boundary that is definable in space. Physical systems may be bounded. A clock is bounded. But there is no 3-dimensional boundary surrounding IBM, the US government, the Yankee baseball team, the justice system, or Dewey Decimal Classification System, or any system that is conceptual or logical. The notion that a system has a boundary is primarily and generally a logical one. If the Wikipedia entry does not make that clear then it will remain too naïve for me to refer students to.

Compare the pre-revision version with the last one I posted yesterday, I believe the latter is more accurate and clearly expressed on several points, not only the one above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.22.80 (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It might be more accurate, but it's a lot of information with no credible (or reliable) source. However, I don't think "systems" like IBM really can be treated under systems theory, so it may be counterproductive to extend the definition of "system". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Please read "EA as applied system theory" on the home page at avancier.co.uk for a short overview of how businesses and business systems have been treated as systems - exactly in line with system theory - since the 1970s.

The current page is wrong on some points and misleading on others. I inserted a reference to a reputable paper on my web site, not wanting to take personal credit, but I have been working with systems in theory and in practice, and teaching systems analysis and design since 1980, so if referring to me personally is more "reliable", then we can do that. Or else, we can remove any reference to me or my web site. I don't care about the reference as much as improving what looks like a naïve and inadequate page at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.22.80 (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Arthur - I await your explanation of why you have reverted to an inferior version of the page - how to improve it in some or all ways I proposed - and what you will count as a "reliable source" - Graham — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.22.80 (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS which instantiates WP:VERIFY. My understanding is that a source may be reliable if it is a published, reviewed, paper, by an organization with a reputation for accuracy (and not an advertisement, editorial, or press release); or published by a recognized expert in the field without a reputation for inaccuracy (but not about his own work, about living people other than himself, or about controversial topics). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

avancier.co.uk is a commercial site, and the description of "system" you quote is part of an advertisement for what they do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Um dude... I don't know who you think you are saying that I'm being paid by rossi because I just created a new account. I actually had a previous account, but forgot my username and decided to make a new one using the username that I now use for all we sites (see escapist magazine, mtgsalvation.com, @gmail, etc.), I am certain that I *will* get around to editing other articles as I see omitted sections, or errors. I am an Engineering Geologist and Ecologist by trade, and have a healthy amount of scepticism about rossi and cold fusion which I have been following for several years. I am a scientist, and believe in the scientific method. I think that the way that cold fusion was 'debunked' and then subsequently persecuted bears some similarities to scientific breakthroughs of the past (geocentricity, plate tectonics, etc).

By careful study of relevant information (even non peer reviewed stuff, since thats the only place that the good scientists can go these days in this field) I have come to the conclusion that the reality of the effect is undeniable and that while a healthy amount of doubt is fine, *blind* outright denial is not. (note that *blind* here refers to without reading the relevant source material, a thoroughly unscientific and unacceptable stance.

SO yes, I will post on the Talk page, and I do have a point of view. However I do not hold that wikipedia is at fault for any of this, it is however the fault of the wider scientific community, which its denial of CF has meant that blind skeptics have far more peer reviewed and mainstream sources than do supporters or scientists in the field.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere, I have no doubt that Fleischmann and Pons found something, even though even they could not replicate their result. It could have been increased fusion in adsorbed deuterium on newly forged platinum, but it could have just been energy of adsorbtion. I have no doubt that Rossi has not found something, or some of his demonstrations would have had the input power monitored. We all know the proper way to test a "black box" energy producing device; have third-party testers bring their own equipment with their own power supply. Even then, it would not be impossible for the "black box" to draw power from the external test equipment, but it would be difficult. (As we're talking about a "black box", even if he had found something, it would be difficult to determine whether it was a nuclear reaction or a superbattery, but either would be of interest.) There are enough — well, mad scientists — who would be willing and able to perform the appropriate tests. (I've met one.)

I can see your point, that a mad engineer who produces a power source of some sort, without a theory, or with the theory contradicting "known" physics, would be unlikely to be published in peer-reviewed journals. But it is not Wikipedia's job to be ahead of reliable sources. Not all CF researchers fall into that category; after all, there is measurable fusion in DT (²H³H) at 1,000 atm (100,000 kPa), and theory predicts that, at higher pressures, you could reach break-even, if there were materials that would contain the "gas". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

you act like I support him unconditionally, I do not. your comments about a theory are not helpful, it is not necessary to have a theory to make a working device... just look at high temperature superconductivity technology. I am not going to argue about why I think it is more likely that Rossi has something than that he does not, its my opinion that i have arrived at after careful weight of the evidence.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest checking out the following article, while very slightly biased, and I do not agree with all of the points that they try to make, it does provide a fairly intelligent and comprehensive view on the Rossi and other LENR devices. I'd be curious to know what your opinion is of it. http://lenrftw.net/are_lenr_devices_real.html#.U51n5nmhPVIInsertcleverphrasehere (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read all the E-Cat studies carefully, but the ones I've read made no or inadequate efforts to measure the electrical input from "wall sockets", etc. Most of the "counterpoint" seem stronger than the "point" to me; I have read most of the NASA studies, and they all said something along the lines of: This is extremely unlikely, but the gain if it worked is so great that the net benefit is reasonable, as far as one can analyze improbable outcomes with great gains. (I wish NASA would put more effort into the near-Earth asteroid watch. There, although we know it's improbable at any given time, we (believe, anyway, although some would say "know") that it has happened a number of times over the past billion years.) Although I cannot find enough information for a Wikipedia comment, NASA and JPL (where I did work for a time) were known for experimenting with unusual technologies in the slim hope of producing a scientific breakthrough. The projects were known as "purple pigeons" (as opposed to "white rats", I believe.) With the current political climate, I doubt that they could do such a thing now except in a director's "discretionary fund". Much of the rest of the paper you pointed me to is trying to analyze the chance of something being accurate based only on the promoter's (and would-be promoters') statements. The paper's interpretation of why Rossi's previous company went under is plausible, but not proven. It's also plausible (but not proven) that Rossi was and is a con-man. The paper also avoids noting that the isotopic composition of the alleged transmutation matches naturally occurring isotopic composition, which seems unlikely for a nuclear reaction. Although I don't remember reading the Toyota paper, transmuting ₅₅Cs to ₅₉Pr without producing measurable amounts of ₅₆Ba, ₅₇La, or ₅₈Ce seems unlikely without using particle beams of ₅B or heavier, especially considering the increased stability of atoms with an even number of protons (or neutrons). But I'm not sure of the isotopic stability regions near there, so it might conceivably be plausible. In other words, it's "magic", rather than "technology". (And I know Clarke's 3rd law and its converse.)

Little of this should be on Wikipedia, but let me point out that I know (at least to the point that I'm able and willing to talk to them personally) one "mad scientist" (he has a prototype "warm fusion" reactor, but it doesn't look as if it will reach break-even) and two science fiction writers who know "mad scientists", who would almost certainly be willing and able to develop a test protocol which would determine that the E-Cat either: (1) had some reaction producing more energy than a chemical reaction would; (2) Have a battery with energy storage density considerably greater than presently known or believed to be possible; or (3) have the capacity to draw power from nearby, but not connected, electrical equipment. (If the 3rd-party test equipment uses power, it is not a "violation" of the laws of physics for the E-Cat to draw on that power, even if the equipment was not designed to have its power tapped.) Furthermore, the "mad scientist" is apparently working with the military, and the science fiction writers have enough fans, that, if this protocol determined the E-Cat worked, there would be little doubt that it actually worked. Since Rossi has not done even what Randi suggested as part of a protocol, one would have to presume he doesn't want skeptical people to believe his process works.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 400 (number) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 413|HTTP status code]] for "Request Entity Too Large", area code for [[Western Massachusetts]].]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Arthur, I have created a bookmark on the Talk:Homeopathy page that is a point where a whole lot of other pages are linking to, so that we don't need to repeat ourselves to new comers. If you don't like it the way I'm doing it, can you do it in such a way that the link works and nobody tries to remove it again. After all it's just a discussion/talk page!—Khabboos (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:TPG suggests use of {{anchor}}. WP:ACCESSIBLE "forbids" (well, as much as anything is forbidden) what you've been doing (creating white-on-white headers). I think I've fixed it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks!—Khabboos (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

An ed has written a script to magically produce wiki citations at HuffPost and numerous other news & blog outlets. They are now trying to defend what sounds like mass loading of external links to article talk pages, so someone else can work on them, someday, maybe. Join the party at talk page re the talk page guidelines in this thread. Info on their script is at the user page and user talk page. I especially liked the braggadocio in later posts in the thread, trumpeting the volume of links added to the mass of pages at a non-English wiki, and the community's desire there to stop him. Of course I debated posting this here under WP:BEANS but my guess is that the snot is already out of the sneeze. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, know any edit filter gurus? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

No.... don't even know what that means, really. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, it seems possible that we could construct an WP:Edit filter which would detect use of the script, and throttle it. Of course, he could edit the script to avoid it. I don't want to post at the "Edit filters wanted" page, because that's the second WP:BEANS target. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thnks Beyond my avail time to pursue I'm afraid. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Master of Puppets might be able to help with an edit filter. SmartSE (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I would just like to explain why I changed "independent" to "input". Independence has its own meaning in linear algebra — specifically, linear independence — and I just wanted to avoid confusion. Not that "independent" is wrong, but "input" is unambiguous, and I fail to see any problem with it. Wham Bam Rock II (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Wham Bam Rock II: "Input", IMO, is computer science jargon. Perhaps we can find a better word in a mathematical article. "Independent" is, at least, classical, and not likely to be ambiguous in context. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be Wikipedia jargon, as well. Sorry about that. I'll self-revert when I get home. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arthur,

We are trying to add a reference to the number 52 about it being the number he wore during his basketball career which has come to an end. Could you tell me why you keep removing it? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyremaster (talk • contribs) 19:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Fyremaster: We only list jersey numbers retired by a team at the top level. This could include college (if it's a top tier institution), but you don't mention the number being retired. If you see any other jersey numbers mentioned, which are not retired or part of the rules of the game, please remove them, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Arthur:How is listing that "52 is the car number of retired NASCAR driver Jimmy Means" any different? NASCAR did not retire the number 52.

@Fyremaster: That's not a jersey number, that's a car number.... OK, so it doesn't make any sense. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers#Numbers in sports, with subsection for NASCAR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Arthur:Well that is just crazy. Who do we contact to make a suggested change to that policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyremaster (talk • contribs) 18:54, July 3, 2014‎

@Fyremaster: WT:WikiProject Numbers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

How is the source for Bowers' arrays not reliable? And why does it matter that he and Conway worked independently? ~[[User:Cookiefonster|Cookie Fonster^talk _sign! 11:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Cookiefonster: The source for Bowers' arrays is Bowers, himself, and that it is more powerful than Conway's "chained arrow notation" is therefore questionable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

well then, here is Bird's Proof (a proof that Bowers' array are stronger than chained arrows): http://www.mrob.com/users/chrisb/Proof.pdf ~[[User:Cookiefonster|Cookie Fonster^talk _sign! 15:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It's irrelevant to the article on tetration or even hyperoperationss in general, as Conway's and Bowers'/Bird's notation are both adequate to handle hyperoperations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arthur,

I notice you've deleted a valid (though uncredited) producer credit on this page. I undeleted as I noticed it on Mr. Klamm's resume and his IMDB page, which does lend legitimacy to the credit.

Thanks, Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcairn (talk • contribs) 17:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a associate producer credit, according to IMDB, and the credited associate producer is not listed. I think only producer (and possibly co-producer) credits should be in the box. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be discussed on the talk page, before the status quo ante is changed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

In short, my reasoning for doing it was because many of the edits were of the more subtle vandalism type that the few remaining RC patrollers or bots weren't catching (people adding their birthdays as events and junk like that). It's not frequent enough to warrant semi-protection, yet consistent enough where we know those types of edits happen. It's the type of article PC was designed for, to be honest. Wizardman 22:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia's WP:PRESERVE policy, and do not pointlessly remove valid references from the encyclopedia as you did here, here and and here. Thanks in advance. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: the edits I reverted were all by the same (still) blocked user. See User:Arthur Rubin/IP list for some others. I have no opinion as to whether the reference is valid, although I tend to doubt it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

As we're long time fellow travelers, I don't mean to pick on you Arthur. I don't know the history of your conflict with certain IP editors. But as much as rules are not the purpose of Wikipedia, neither are vendettas. So, while I'm not sure what the term of art is in SoCal, still, as we say in Boston, "slow your roll." You've leapt to a paranoid conclusion here and even a broken clock is right twice a day. Illegitimi non carborundum! -- Kendrick7^talk 06:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

To Kendrick7: If you, as a user in good standing, have independently verified the references in question, then re-add them in your own name. Do not criticize Arthur for removing material added by an untrustworthy user, since that is material which is presumptively unverified. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing in our WP:PRESERVE policy which says we should automatically discount an edit based upon its editor. Rather, WP:Assume Good Faith should always be our watchword. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Try reading the block enforcement stuff. Edits by block evading socks are revertible on sight. It's been going on a long time. The whole thing was reviewed by an active admin 2-3 months ago. There is at least one other active admin actively working to enforce the IPs block. So, if you want to adopt any of their edits, have at it. But if you're going to object to block enforcement on this IP, the only way to not look silly is to familiarize yourself with the history first. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Not if it violates WP:PRESERVE. I've caught another editor just now doing a similar reversion. Where is the link to this policy you speak of such that I might reconcile the two? -- Kendrick7^talk 02:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: WP:BMB, WP:BANREVERT. Technically, this IP-set is only "blocked", but there have been no proposals to revert the block(s). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, OK. But we shouldn't have one policy which says one thing and one policy which says something else. I've noted the disagreement in the section headers for now, and have begun a discussion here. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Both edits I have done make the article more accurate and less bias. Both changes were cited by well respected sources. The first was a more general and less biased definition, which the first wasn't really a definition at all. The second was a direct quote from the CDC to make the article less bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccpb101 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you the same Arthur L. Rubin who published an article on choosability with Paul Erdos and Herbert Taylor in 1980? See my annotated bibliography #DS8 at the Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, under Erdos, for "Rubin's Block Theorem" and "Rubin's 2-Choosability Theorem". Zaslav (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Zaslav: Yes, that's me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's a pleasure to meet you, in a sense, at last. Zaslav (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1995 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• November 4]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Arthur, did you get my e-mail a week ago? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to this Paul Krugman in chiropractic? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, yes. But, it's either completely off-topic, or, if Krugman actually is commenting on chiropractic, he's not an expert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on both. Jim1138 (talk) 09:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Before I can go ahead and re-add Joey Badass, I want to understand why you think he's a non-notable rapper. It may seem that way given a shortage of non-English articles on him, but the guy is considered one of the biggest rising stars of hip-hop, with some even going as far as calling him a hip-hop prodigy. It's actually surprising how a lot of this hasn't been conveyed in his article. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 08:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Due to limited space in the year articles, the standard of notability required for inclusion in an article on a year is much higher than the level of notability required to have a biographical article. JRSpriggs (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@JRSpriggs: And I agree, but Joey Badass is definitely more than notable enough to merit inclusion in that article. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 12:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean when you say the article "has general notability requirements, generally considered to including having their own article (not a group or event)." Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 18:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Davykamanzi: Not everyone in Category:1996 births deserves an entry. They have still have to have some international notability, and the article should not be a stub (whether or not tagged as a stub). The other guidelines at WP:WikiProject Years are vague. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I spent an unbelievably long (about 2 months) period of time expanding the section, and I weeded out several tens of articles of people who I did not think merited an entry. If you look through all of those names, most (if not all) of those individuals have some international notability, even though some of their articles are indeed stubs. It's the same case with 1997 and 1998. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 18:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

One example I can pick out for you is Aníta Hinriksdóttir, an Icelandic middle-distance runner who's won medals in the European Junior Championships and the World Youth Championships, and is currently competing in the World Junior Championships in Eugene. Another good example is Croatian footballer Alen Halilović, who currently plays for FC Barcelona and has appeared for the Croatia senior national team. My suggestion to you would be to revert your edit and leave the entries there, and if there's any particular individuals you don't deem deserving of an entry (which I think you'll find are only a few) then feel free to take them off the article. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 18:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Davykamanzi: Those articles are quite long compared to some I've removed individually from 1997 and 1998, including (I believe) some of yours. In spite of what I said on your talk page earlier, which I erased, 1996 was the only article where I reverted your edits, rather than looking at the entries individually. I am assuming good faith, but I need not assume that your measure of international notability reflects (quasi-)consensus. Increasing the length of the article by over 50%, when it is probably already too long, needs a higher level of scrutiny. If I have time (I have a number of appointments today), I'll go through your list, but if I find 10% of a sample of 20-30, which need to be removed, I'll stand by my decision. You can, of course, bring it up on the talk page and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years, and I'll abide by consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Given the massive backlash I seem to have triggered on the matter of years articles I'm going to concede to your decision to revert the edits, but it seems strange that the 1996 article is sandwiched between two years that have extensive Births sections so I'm trimming the section at User:Davykamanzi/sandbox/1996 births x. So far I've completed January and February but it shouldn't take more than a few days (might even finish today). Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 16:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This entire issue is becoming excruciating. There's absolutely NO way the revised Births list is excessive…I can bet you it's just as much data as there is in 1995 or 1997. I'm failing to understand your reasoning behind this latest revert (pardon my tone). Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 23:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Question. How exactly do you want me to justify most of those individual entries? There's nowhere near enough space in the summary box for that. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 13:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The reasoning is that you have added 40K bytes, 38K bytes, ..., 16K bytes. Your justification is the same, each time. As you were wrong (in the opinion of the only two editors who have commented, the first few times), why should we believe you now? I am not doubting your good faith, but you have shown that your opinions as to what births should be in these articles do not match my opinion, and there is little further commentary. You should stop adding the material until there is some standard your edits should be judged by; although "international significance" is a vague standard, loosely agreed to, which you state you are not following. In the absence of an established standard, the status quo ante should be maintained. If you add a few individuals at a time, I'm willing to check them.

Even if you are correct that 1995 (which you apparently have modified), 1997, and 1998 have similar body counts, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should be considered. I'm willing to abide by consensus at WT:YEARS or Talk:1996, but any consensus that exists is against you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the public should be informed of the Increasing number of public deaths by car. I do not think that the higher number of pedestrian deaths Are related to accidents per se. Could they be intentional? How do you prove that a driver intended to hit and kill a pedestrian? You can't. But nevertheless I believe it to be true, myself an example.

166.137.156.160 (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying you are a dead pedestrian, or that you intended to hit a kill a pedestrian? In either case, the matter is not relevant to Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

97+23=89+31=83+37=79+41=73+47=71+49=67+53=61+59=67+53=77+43=
29+91=101+19=17+103=13+107=11+109=7+113=5+115=3+117=2+118=120

Bold numbers are prime ones!--Maher27777 (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)--Maher27777 (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

13 is right, 20 is wrong, and why is it interesting? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for your recent comments on my talk page => User talk:Drbogdan#Richest 400 Americans - Your alternet source (note: title changed a bit - to clarify) - you mentioned, re the text/ref being considered, that the richest 400 => "have as much wealth as the lower 50%" - however, the primary source notes, instead, that the richest 400 => "have more wealth than half of all Americans combined" - this may (or may not) be equivalent of course - but quoting the primary source directly may seem preferred I would think - readers could then sort out, based on the cited reference(s), the better understanding for themselves - if interested, I should note that I've considered this earlier with User:LondonYoung => User talk:Drbogdan#Affluence in the United States article - in any regards - thank you *very much* for your efforts with all this - it's *greatly* appreciated - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arthur,

I don't understand your recent edits, which remove references to The Wikipedia Revolution but leave the text the refs were supporting in place (eg , , ). Surely if there's some problem I'm unaware of with this reference, the sensible solution would be to remove all text it was supporting, rather than leave unreferenced text? I feel like I'm missing something here, in which case a pointer to the pertinent discussion would be appreciated...

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear why the references are "improper"; is it because of circular referencing, claims not supported in the ref, or what? At any rate, somebody seems to be adding refs to the book somewhat at random, and removing text simply because a bad ref was added seems inadvisable. Arthur, could you explain what is happening, for the somewhat mystified among us? Reify-tech (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the references were added. At first, I thought the editor adding them was connected to the book. Now, I'm not so sure. Many of them were added in place, without there being any changes to the text. My feeling is that there is no evidence that both the book is intended to be non-fiction and the publisher edits it as non-fiction. If not fiction, perhaps it's an essay.

Actions: If possible the edits adding the source should just be reverted. (1) those without page numbers, especially when in the article more than once, should be replaced by {{cn}} if there are no other sources there. (2) those with page numbers, should either be tagged {{rs}} or replaced by {{cn}}. (3) If the references is kept, then url="https://en.wikipedia.com/..." should be removed.

I apologize for not simply reverting all the edits adding the material, as I did at DMOZ. But, here, the editor may very well be acting in good faith, and it would have taken me longer to check each reference to see whether it was arbitrarily added, or some text was added for it to support, than seems reasonable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Bomis page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not a category theorist, but in Universal quantification#As adjoint, the version of Logoprofeta appears to me more plausible than the one restored by your undo: In the latter, S doesn't occur anywhere on the right hand side, so e.g. ∃_fS wouldn't depend on S, which seems strange to me. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jochen Burghardt: Neither version for the universal quantifier seems plausible, but you're correct as to the existential quantifier. I've reverted myself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't understand the section, but just noticed the non-occurrence of S. Maybe it should be said which category is talked about. I achieved at least to simplify ∃_fS to f[S], i.e. the image of S under f, while ∀_fS is empty except for f constant on S in which case it just contains f 's unique value. Maybe this amounts to ordinary universal quantification if f is a formula in one free variable; then {} and {true} would be the possible quantification outcomes. The section's final 2 sentences sound somewhat similar, but I didn't really understand them either. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1701 (number), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reversal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I need to know more of my lineage, prescott. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 66.87.112.193 (talk • contribs) 08:19, August 24, 2014

Hi Arthur, thanks so much for giving your input on the RfC. I hope it is acceptable for me to contact you here about it? I'm still so new to this whole process. I'd just like to point out my sources for the "public objections have been raised by hundreds of professionals and officials" line. One source is very new so many editors might not be aware of its contents (it came out just this month), and I think it really does establish the sentence and the notability of the whole section clearly. Namely, C-SPAN gave a prominent adherent an entire 45 minute segment of Washington Journal to present his theories. He purportedly speaks for thousands of professionals (including, according to him, a dozen high-rise architects and 70-80 structural engineers), and it was a very public objection without being minimized by the mainstream reliable source which publicized it. The second source is also relatively obscure, but is a peer-reviewed paper (Manwell pg. 857 PDF) which inspired the sentence because it states "In response to the U.S. government’s official account of the attacks of September 11, 2001, hundreds of officials, academics, and professionals have publicly expressed their objections." The Manwell source was questioned by editors, so I found the C-SPAN source to support it, which I believe it does very well. I do not state, and it is not implied, that the objections have factual basis - however I do feel like the existence of the objections has been established, and I would appreciate it if criticisms would address the two sources specifically. An alternative wording for the phrase was suggested during conversation, but no one supported it besides myself and the editor who proposed it suggested I go back to the original language.

Also, more of a general process question: is it too late to refine the language in response to editor feedback? How do I handle this? For example, one editor had a problem with the "prevailing theory" line, and I tried to reach a solution with them in discussion... but unfortunately other things happened and it turned into an RfC before any editors had time to respond to my suggestion. Also, it sounds like you might have some suggestions as well... not sure how to handle all this... do I leave it alone and let the chips fall as they may, or do I revise to accommodate feedback? Smitty121981 (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Smitty121981: As to the specific sources; I would have to watch the C-SPAN report to determine whether they take it seriously or whether it's "look at this kook". (I wouldn't spend 45 minutes on "look at this kook", but the History Channel has had two-hour specials with no accurate points, and 60 minutes has had 15-minute segments on "look at this kook".) As far as I know no person verified to have relevant credentials is on the 911A&E list, even disregarding the people who intentionally signed up with phony credentials so as to discredit the assertion that "members" had relevant credentials. It also doesn't support Manwell's statement per se; it would only support "professionals", if it were credible.

Manwell has a plausible point at p.859; the government used 9/11 to manipulate public opinion. However, his use of Griffin 2004 suggests a certain lack of editorial review. It not being a significant point of the paper, I wouldn't consider it necessarily to have been reviewed, and I would lean against using it on Wikipedia for that statement. (In other words, Manwell appears to be quoting Griffin, and Griffin is not a reliable source for much of anything.) And 911.lege.net as a whole has no credibility whatsoever; I question whether it has sufficient indicia of authenticity to be used even for a courtesy copy, but I admit the possibility that it is stored correctly.

The existence of the objections has been established, but not whether any of the objectors have relevant credentials. Gage, for example, is apparently not a structural engineer.

You can discuss variations of the text, but I don't think you will find support for other than the fact that there are conspiracy theories and that they are popular. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. Please do watch the clip, contrary to expectations there is no "kooky" language at all. Indeed, Gage is sitting in the same seat (metaphorically) as the prominent senators who often appear on the show. C-SPAN describes the show as "The Washington Journal daily live program provides a forum for leading journalists and public policy makers to discuss key events and legislation."
• The source of the information is not the hosting site where Google Scholar found a pdf, but is the journal American Behavioral Scientist - do you have a specific problem with this peer-reviewed journal? "For over 50 years, American Behavioral Scientist has been a valuable source of information for scholars, researchers, professionals, and students, providing in-depth perspectives on intriguing contemporary topics throughout the social and behavioral sciences." Also as I pointed out to another editor who criticized the sources Manwell uses, the interpretation of those sources passed peer-review and we as editors cannot take it upon ourselves to re-interpret it (or to decide it wasn't reviewed without any evidence of this). Finally, you did make a good point about the C-SPAN coverage only supporting the "professionals" part and not the "officials". Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I have now included a third source for the statement as support. History professor Robert A Goldberg gave a presentation published by Florida Atlantic University Press titled "Enemies Within: The Conspiracy Culture of Modern America" (2010). In addition to Richard Falk, Sibel Edmonds, Raymond McGovern, Andreas von Bulow, Michael Meacher, and Peter Dale Scott which Manwell listed specifically in her paper, Goldberg added Jesse Verntura, Cynthia Mckinney, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, leaders of the John Birch Society, and religious leaders like Texe Marrs and VS Harrel to the list of officials. Smitty121981 (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I found what I thought was an incorrect edit comment -- and, maybe I should have alerted you about it ["here"], instead of posting about it in this new section of a certain AWB robot "Bugs" page. (Sorry -- ['if' applicable]).

Please [feel free to] do whatever is appropriate, including perhaps [a] removing the above "section" from that Bugs page (with or without moving it to this "Talk:" page), OR [b] adding a comment to that "section", explaining what happened (/slash "how", /slash "why"...); and/or perhaps including [c] diagnosing / "finding a solution for", some bug in the AWB robot [code] ...or whatever.

--Mike Schwartz (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I see that this has been

Resolved

 – with no code changes needed, to the AWB robot [code]

now -- and archived. Good!

Just for the record, the above-mentioned "new section" (see the link above labeled "this", right before where it says "new section", above), has apparently been moved (from the old location, which [a] can be found above, if you look at the wikitext, or if you look at the "destination" URL of the hyperlink; and [b] did not contain the substring "Archive_26", or even "Archive"; and [c] was: Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#Incorrect_edit_comment.2C_.28which_mentions_AWB.29) to its new hotel (or, should I say, to its "final resting place"?) whose (new) location is [more like] Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs/Archive_26#Incorrect_edit_comment.2C_.28which_mentions_AWB.29. Just "FYI". --Mike Schwartz (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

An arbitration amendment request(Tea Party movement), to which you contributed, resulted in a motion. The original discussion can be found here. For the arbitration committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 18:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Congrats, Arthur. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, thanks again for your feedback on the RfC. I wanted to let you know that I completely revised the second sentence in the proposal, including removing the "hundreds of professionals and officials" line that you objected to. Also, I have completely reworked the sources. Manwell is gone (along with many others), and I think I am using the C-SPAN clip in a much more neutral way now. If you don't mind, do you think you could come by and take another look at it? link to RfC Thanks! Smitty121981 (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, my group is interested in creating a set of infobox templates for Category:Cyberattacks and similar pages. There is an existing/evolving ontology for this field in STIX. We are looking for an experienced Wikipedian to help guide us in creating such infobox templates. Would you be interested, or can you recommend someone who might be interested in collaborating?

Regards jrf (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You deleted Wage theft from "See also" in Income inequality in the United States, claiming (if I understand correctly) that it was not relevant. I added words explaining the relevance that I see. I hope this is acceptable. Best Wishes, DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

My reversion of your deletion was itself reverted, asking me to move the discussion to Talk:Income inequality in the United States, which I'm doing. Did you look at the article on Wage theft? When I looked at it, the relationship between wage theft and income inequality seemed obvious, namely that wage theft was one mechanism by which income inequality is increased.  ??? DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Please keep your opinions to yourself, and do not EVER accuse me of making threats of harm. I am a very peaceful individual, but I hold my opinions firm. An administrator took my side and blocked the person on those grounds. Lord Laitinen (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Lord Laitinen, the administrator blocked him for other reasons, apparently related to some suppressed edits. It was not for threats of self-harm. And you did make a threat. If repeated, it would be a legal threat, and would be grounds for blocking if your target is not indefinitely blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we can dial this back a bit. There's no benefit to recursing "threats of X" infinitely such that a threat to block someone becomes a threat to harm. It's the same sort of nonsense whereby accusing someone of a personal attack is elevated to a personal attack, making any attempts to reason about NPA meaningless. Protonk (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Protonk: I didn't accuse him of making a personal attack, although, thinking it over, it's more of an actual attack then the WP:IDENTITY violations people have been blocked for as (allegedly) causing actual harm. (I'm not 76.72.20.218.) I accused him of threatening to have someone blocked for something which is not a block reason, and which he has been told it's not a block reason. If he does that again, and I notice it within 24 hours, I'll block him for 24 hours. He (at last check) still denies that he did anything wrong. Perhaps a block will let him know that we (collectively) think it's wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocks don't exist to let people know we think they're wrong. My comment wasn't to suggest that you accused him of a personal attack but to comment on this edit where you said "If you continue in your anti-policy stance, you probably will be blocked for making threats of harm (blocking, not otherwise justified by policy) to others". That statement lets a threat of a block stand in (somehow) for a threat of violence. Threats of violence are a serious issue which are usually dealt with swiftly and summarily. The policy doesn't exist to elevate actions which aren't threats of violence so we can put some moral force behind a statement. Further, your comments on this page (namely "it would be a legal threat, and would be grounds for blocking if your target is not indefinitely blocked") serve to do the same thing but with a different bright line policy. Threats of violence and legal threats are exactly that. Expanding the definition of either serves to weaken what force they have and engenders lawyering about the margins on both. Protonk (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. An adequate reason is "misrepresenting Wikipedia policy, to the point of attempted disruption". As the user is indefinitely blocked [and I've been told that "indefinitely" means that nothing on Wikipedia would affect the decision], there may be no actual disruption in this case, and the specific case is stale, anyway. If the user was not indefinitely blocked (especially if there were a block which was overturned), that would be actual disruption. I'm not going to bring it up again, unless he acts further, but he has been warned. Perhaps he should be reminded by someone he considers "respectful" that he is wrong, and should be blocked if he continues acting on policies which he thinks should be in effect, but are not in effect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not against disabusing editors (sometimes brusquely) of misapprehensions like Lord Laitinen's. I'm also not against blocking someone who vows (credibly) to insinuate themselves in situations involving self harm to do the exact opposite thing that should be done. I just wanted to make clear that I think the expansion of bright line rules like ToV, NLT and NPA (to add in the analogous situations I offered in the first comment) to situations like this is an antipattern. I don't know in this case if theirs is a credible threat to hector people who say they want to harm themselves or if it is bluster. I'd prefer not to find out by having them actually threaten to block an editor for threatening suicide but I'd also like to avoid blocking preemptively if at all possible. Protonk (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I reused a link of yours there. What I really need a name/link for is the stock exchange pattern where, the more a security falls in value, the more people are likely to keep it rather than sell and "realize" the (virtual) losses. --Nemo 15:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No Arthur, you are wrong, both technically and morally. Carbon is not the same thing as carbon dioxide. You say in your edit summary "Well, it's called carbon emissions". Ha ha, bloody ha. That kind of excuse for perpetuating a misnomer really makes me laugh. Just because millions of people call it that, call a thing by a name that is technically incorrect, does not make it okay. Millions of people can, and are frequently found, to be wrong. You are one of them. We are not doing that, not going down that of ignorance any more. By changing the name back to "carbon emissions" you have done your bit to promote ignorance and misunderstanding of the subject. How does it feel to be a promulgator of bullshit? You are wrong, wrong, wrong, willfully incorrect. Willfully because you know the name you insist on is not the correct one. Arbo (talk)

@Arboghast: We have:

• carbon pricing, not carbon dioxide pricing;
• carbon trading, not carbon dioxide trading;
• carbon emission trading, not carbon dioxide trading
• carbon emissions trading, not carbon dioxide emissions trading (although I have no idea why "emission" and "emissions" point to different articles)

and that reflects how they are used in the real world. The "bullshit" is in the claim that any of these actually relate to CO₂ itself; they are all measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, rather than actual atmospheric CO₂ release. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Gasses which contain carbon (e.g. methane, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, ethane, ethylene, various halogenated hydrocarbons, etc.) will be converted into carbon dioxide by chemical reactions in the atmosphere. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't aware of that. I thought methane was a more effective greenhouse gas than CO₂, and that effectiveness was what was to be taxed/licensed/limited in carbon trading. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I assume that it is true that methane is more opaque in the infrared than carbon dioxide. So in the time before it is oxidized to carbon dioxide, it will have a worse effect than the carbon dioxide into which it is transformed. The oxidation does not occur in a flame, so it does not proceed that quickly. It depends on the carbon compounds being attacked by the radical OH⁻ which is produced by the action of sunlight on O₂ and H₂O. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You might want to look at WP:AE#Is this allowed? (diff of addition). Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I found a new footer an a bunch of associated articles I never knew existed . . . due to the edit you reverted, that I replaced. I have added to the new content so yes, its now under my name as an addition. I'm not looking at the editor or the source. Its valid content. And the previously unlinked articles have only been around for about 9 years. Trackinfo (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

why dont you take up that expencive story happend at the congress when ta laod man got in to the lookpickers and the hunt of an hacker whith domnestic tools in his hand. Old fashn stile 007 bond stile. Got a Grizyly bear at ccc crew card hand. and the Boom was a fact. Going deeper. At the fly tower sat a woman married to Maccaresh man. Going deeper at the congress sat a fly instructor. At the congress that devlishe night. Matrix have seen the film..mr smith eating at libanees resturant. Berlin. The problem was that mr smith was poor..and so was not his Good friend at old time before. the berlin wall. Money talks in green collor. Going deep an axidental happend and steffen was contaminated of mr smiths poison old 007 bond stily. My gov swiched of my new installed windof whit games and everything. My nokia are on Down mode. Putin is upp and awake.Ukraine. Sweden have been KGB and putins desktop sence glastnost 1980 when Breshnev kissed moth by mouth whith Gorbatjov a fathless kiss. I was at early young age member at Amnesty international....and to warn CCC. The Boys sended me an fathless kiss. Just now nothing works well at the moment... b — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.185.122.30 (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe I wrote that. In fact, when I saw your correction in the history, I chuckled that anyone could misspell that word—not realizing that you had corrected my blunder.—Finell 04:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be so much easier if we just spelled everything the way it is pronounced. For example, "kyub". ;-) JRSpriggs (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Arthur Rubin. I've seen flag icons being use for manny boxing and mma athletes. Most people don't care if boxing or mma articles have flag icons. Besides, flag icons are seen as important; since fighters often do represent their countries. Why do you removed them if nobody appears to care. — GoldenBoy25 (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@GoldenBoy25: Per the various guidelines, it is never correct to add flag icons without a consensus unless the athlete represents a national team. It may not always be correct to remove flag icons in boxing without a consensus, but it is in MMA. Even in the rare cases where it is correct to add flag icons, it is never correct to add a link to the United States or to Mexico, per WP:OVERLINK. I'm heading out now, but I'll remove any flags you added the past few days when I get back. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I took the note about place in the lead. I think your version of the intro serves all sides. I however see the need for Grove and Radkau - and of cause Ostrom as well - being cited in the full text and not only as critics of Hardin. He's got a sort of two-faced-role - the science essay was parroted and cited a lot, but found no credentials among historians, economists and ecology experts which had dealt with actual commons. That said, a part of the work is better to be found in the actual commons article. Serten (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, a quick question regarding your recent comment over at Alex Jones. You appear to be saying that I was edit-warring against your modified new version ("after the false claim that there was consensus against the modified version"). That is not the case at all. I was reverting Collect to have either the prior version (ie: the two sources in the lead) or your modified version (ie: the two sources in the body, with "leading" added to the lead; with which I agreed) stay, while Collect was trying to get rid of both of them. Could you clarify if I'm misinterpreting what you said? Thanks. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gaba p: If you think the modified version is more in keeping with the guidelines, it's problematic to revert to "your" version with the full paragraph in the lead. On the other hand, if you think your version is more in keeping with the guidelines than the modified version, you're generally doing the right thing. You're both edit warring, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Arthur I would call neither "my" version because the prior one was the consensus (SPLC source, +2 months up) plus the NYT source and the modified on was proposed by you. I am perfectly fine with either one. It was Collect the one edit warring to remove both from the lead, he first tried to remove the prior version with the two sources and after he couldn't do it he came back and removed your middle ground modified version. I only reverted back to the prior version, which had been up for longer and so I consider it more "stable", after Collect edit-warred to remove your version from the lead without going back to the the prior version. What he was attempting to do was to impose the removal of both versions from the lead, something he could not get consensus to do neither in the TP of the article or in the WP:BLPN thread he started. Again: I would go with either version with no issues. It is him who is attempting to remove both versions. Thanks for the answer. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Arthur Rubin. I've been watching Mount Ontake recently erupted and thus I made edits, and found your rollback the above. The reverted version seems to me rather useful, and the Japanese Wikipedia article looks better, well sourced one. Just curious, would you tell me the reason of rollback? Thanks, --Aphaia (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The rollback was due to block evasion, see the ip's talk page. You are welcome to update the page in question based on info from the Japanese Wiki page or make the edit yours. Vsmith (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at September 1 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - SchroCat (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

AN3 discussion about September 1 found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Dr. Blofeld reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: ). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop being so pointy and childish with your inclusion of "<redacted>": it does nothing but reflect on you, not others. - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Arthur, if you've the time, it would be great if you'd keep these new articles on your watch list and contribute when you can. It would be much appreciated. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I assume you are referring primarily to Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa which is also on my watchlist. JRSpriggs (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

JRSpriggs, Thank you for asking. No, that's the main. See 2014 Ebola virus cases in the United States, Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea. There are separate country articles being developed. There's too much information for one article, and the main article you mentioned, should have information on the wider issue. There's an RfC on the talk page of the U.S. article if you'd care to comment. There are some editors from the main article who want to keep all the content there, but that's not realistic. If you look at other wide ranging topics on WP, you'll see they all have multiple specialty articles, as an encyclopedia should. The editors on the main article didn't object to the creation of the new articles, but now that they exist, they've changed their mind and want to delete/redirect them. It's like putting the baby back in the womb, imo, but the wider community needs to decide. imo, these are sovereign nations, not just a conglomerate of West African states. And this is an encyclopedia. Separate country articles are inevitable. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Time

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Time for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (talk) @ 18:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I notice that 9/11 Truth movement and 9/11 conspiracy theories are not categorized as fringe. Since they are well outside of professional interpretation of the evidence, shouldn't they be categorized as such? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Do you mean "categorized" Category:Fringe theories or "tagged" {{fringe}}? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Should these articles be categorized as Category:Fringe theories? Should have been more precise. Jim1138 (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

A possible solution would be to just update Module:AutomaticArchiveNavigator to allow it to generate the output of {{Talk archive navigator}}. In other words, if you check the code for {{Automatic archive navigator}} you see {{#invoke: AutomaticArchiveNavigator | aan }}. It should be fairly easy to make {{Talk archive navigator}} work with say {{#invoke: AutomaticArchiveNavigator | tan }}. I'm sure Toohool or Mr. Stradivarius or one of the other LUA experts could make this happen. Thanks for the note at TFD/H! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Plastikspork and Arthur Rubin: I've implemented this at Module:AutomaticArchiveNavigator/sandbox. Now, {{talk archive navigation/sandbox}} is the same as {{automatic archive navigator/sandbox}}, but with different default settings. The links are displayed below the banner, like {{talk archive navigation}}, but the arrows appear after the first skip in numbering, like {{automatic archive navigator}}. There are a few new options as well. You can change the number of links displayed with |links=n, and you can suppress red links by using |noredlinks=yes in either template. The module displays a maximum of one red link, to avoid having huge swathes of red if you use a high number of links. And you can set an archive prefix with |prefix=, so, for example, the templates will now work on ANI archives with the code |prefix=IncidentArchive. It could probably still use some tweaking - let me know if you notice anything you think should be changed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you please look at Talk:Natural number where there seems to be some disruptive editing taking place. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arthur

I'm a bit mystified by this reversion. Koch responded to an article in Rolling Stone, did they not?- MrX 21:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm wrong, but you're also wrong. Correct English would be "Rolling Stone article", not "Rolling Stone's article". I think the justification (if English requires justification for irregularities) is that it's in Rolling Stone, not of Rolling Stone. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Right. Thanks for catching that. - MrX 23:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for your remark. I did't new that, maybe because I'm new in editing Wikipedia content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cktx (talk • contribs) 17:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"In 2009 comedy film Year One, that parodied historical, biblical and mythical persons, places and events, Enmebaragesi is portrayed as a great hunter from the village."

This last sentence I wrote before and recently I correct it because I did small mistake. Enmebaragesi isn't the greatest hunter of the village, but one of the best. The greatest is Marlak. This correction isn't Vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsom7 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

hi; may i ask what was wrong with my edit to 42, please? Antalas (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Antalas: Even in the fictional context, it's trivia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

yeah, agree; then why not kill shakespearian reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antalas (talk • contribs) 07:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll get back to it after cleaning up a few sock puppets of banned editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

When I come across that IP user in the future, should I just revert all edits? Has the editor behind the IPs been officially banned? That would, of course, justify reverting all edits. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@I am One of Many: He hasn't "officially" been banned. However, since early 2012, when "he" was first blocked for three months, he hasn't stopped editing, so it's still block evasion. I don't recall anyone ever having been in favor of disregarding the block, though.

I suppose it's possible that there is more than one person here, but I have never seen overlapping edits with similar characteristics. Per WP:BEANS, I decline to state what I consider the characteristics. He may be XB70Valyrie who is officially banned, but I don't remember his identifying characteristics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what to do last night. Most of their edits are the addition of trial wiki links that should clearly be reverted. Then every so often there is an edit that may be constructive (maybe 10%). My view is that since most of the edits are not helpful and there is long-term block evasion, they should all be reverted. I tried to figure out which might be constructive and add them back in, but it's a wast of time. I am One of Many (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arthur,

I need an admin to clean up a file that I recently created on Wikipedia that I moved to Wikimedia. It's causing confusion since it has splintered into two threads that are being separately updated. Please respond to the "Now Commons" tag and delete the file. (I'm assuming this then allows the wikimedia version to be used on wikipedia.)

0nlyth3truth (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop stalking my edits, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaucyJimmy (talk • contribs) 21:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@SaucyJimmy: Why? Few, if any, are good, and the majority are bad (violating policies, guidelines, or consensus as to article content). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Because it's weird, maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaucyJimmy (talk • contribs) 16:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

this is weird Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Already handled by Vsmith; thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

...

Hello Arthur I did make edit on Code of Hammurabi, you erased it (there was no link), I reverted it back and put link to it (tested, old link!), you erased it again! Why?!! Exactly, I add that Code of Hammurabi is missing codes 13 and 66 to 99. Link that I put is old link (#8) and still work (!): http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/hamframe.htm . You have to enter it http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/medmenu.asp then go to: Code of Hammurabi, then go to: The Code of Hammurabi translated by L. W. King. Same if you want to see: The Code of Hammurabi translated by L. W. King, this is link to that translation - L. W. King translation, where you can see codes, and no problem for L. W. King translation! Don't get it why is then problem with my link when it goes to same text?!? Or you want direct link for both: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp Here you can EASY see that codes 13 and 66 - 99 are missing!!! That fact goes under Laws section at Code of Hammurabi. You write it if is forbidden for me. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsom7 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gsom7: I can see that 13 and 66–99 are missing in that translation. We don't know why 13 is missing, and 66-99 could be missing because a tablet or two was lost, even if the translation was believed to be complete. Under the circumstances, if a scholar stated that 13 and 66–99 were likely never written, then we might include that fact. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)